Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Ainsworth be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. James Cran be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Women's Website

Ms Dari Taylor: If she will make a statement on the impact of the women's website in increasing access to Government information for women. [42926]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): The Ministers for Women's website is another demonstration of our genuine commitment to improving the dialogue between Government and the women of this country. It has attracted responses from women across the UK and beyond on a wide variety of policy, including child care, education, rape, women's and men's health, Northern Ireland and the website itself. It is another way of connecting women to Government, improving the flow of information and complementing the more traditional forms of communication.

Ms Taylor: I am reassured by your response this afternoon, Minister. Like you, I see the website as a clear complement to a woman's life. Whether she is a traditional woman who has to, or feels she has to, stay at home, or a fast-tracking woman, this is an excellent source of information. In developing the website, will you consider Stockton borough council's website and its availability? It is free at the point of use to most women, to all people who are unemployed, to all who are unwaged and to all children. I see the website as an incredibly good service to offer. When you are considering the development of the website—
HON. MEMBERS: "Order."

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are getting somewhat distracted. The hon. Lady should speak through the Chair of the House and not directly to the Minister. Hon. Members are right to be disturbed about the matter.

Ms Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sorry.
I hope that, when the Minister is developing the service, she will see the important link between all local women's organisations and the Ministers for Women's website.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I congratulate her local authority on what it is doing. Since creating the website, we have decided—as my hon. Friend suggested—to explore the feasibility of establishing a women's electronic interactive network. The feasibility study is looking at how women's organizations—local and national—might have greater access to hardware and training. When we get the results of the feasibility study, we will decide whether to commission a pilot project, whereby we could link selected women's organisations to one another locally and to us here in government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Occupational Pensions

Mr. Tim Collins: What steps she has taken to improve the framework for occupational pensions. [42929]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We fully recognise the importance of occupational pensions in providing income for retirement. The pensions review is looking at ways to strengthen and support these schemes. We want people to understand their benefits, and we are developing proposals for a quality in pensions award to find ways of acknowledging the best in occupational pension schemes and of encouraging others to meet the standards of the best.
We will also be consulting widely on proposals to make pension schemes easier to operate, without reducing security for their members, by simplifying a number of requirements.

Mr. Collins: Given that, why was the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries so bitterly critical of the Government recently?

Mr. Denham: The welfare reform Green Paper has made it clear that occupational pension schemes are one of the welfare success stories of the century. It is widely recognised that the way in which we pay pensions in the future will depend on the economic wealth that our economy generates. The package of measures in the Budget last year and this year are designed to create the economic conditions that will provide us with the wealth to pay all our pensions in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Family-friendly Working Arrangements

Helen Jackson: If she will make a statement on the actions the Ministers for Women are taking to ensure that new employment opportunities are designed to fit in with family responsibilities. [42930]

Jane Griffiths: If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for family-friendly working arrangements. [42938]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Family-friendly employment is a Government priority. We are encouraging good practice and underpinning it with a legal framework of rights to enable parents, both mothers and fathers, to balance their home and work responsibilities.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that there will not be full-time full employment in the 21st century and that the fact that partners in families choose to work three or four days a week is good for families and for job opportunities? Will she ensure that future legislation—on sickness, holidays and pensions—offers incentives to partners in families who choose to take up part-time employment?

Ms Harman: We want to ensure that people have as much choice as possible in how they balance their responsibilities to care for their children at home with their need to provide for their children by going out to paid work. Part-time work is an important option, which is particularly taken up by women when their children are young. It is important not only that part-time work is available but that women are not discriminated against in terms of pay and conditions when they take up the option of part-time work.

Jane Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that my constituency of Reading is one of the few places in the country where there is nearly full employment? Does she agree that employers should be aware that the long hours worked by both men and women are causing considerable difficulty to family life and that they should take steps to make their employment practices more family friendly?

Ms Harman: That is absolutely right; it is one reason why we are implementing the working time directive, which puts a ceiling on the hours that people can work. When parents are at work, they need to be sure that their children are well cared for, which is why we have a national child care strategy: we want to ensure affordable, accessible and quality child care. Parents need not only good child care, but time with their children—around the time of birth, if a child is suddenly taken ill or if there is a family crisis involving an elderly relative. When half the work force are women, and most of those women are somebody's mother or somebody's daughter, the world of work needs to recognise that people have family, as well as work, responsibilities. We must have a competitive economy that recognises the importance of strong families.

Mrs. Theresa May: The Secretary of State will be aware that, despite all the Government press releases and glossy brochures, the first Government action to help mothers to take up employment opportunities—many of which are part time—by helping families with the provision of child care was the tax break for places in workplace nurseries, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the Inland Revenue is now revisiting many of those workplace nursery schemes, removing the tax benefits and causing financial disadvantage to many working women? Does that not give people a mixed

message about the Government's real intentions in helping with the provision of child care for women in the workplace? What representations has she made for working women to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that issue?

Ms Harman: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box, and I particularly welcome the point that she has raised. She has highlighted not only child care, which is important, but the tax treatment of workplace nurseries. She is absolutely right: a problem has emerged, which we are discussing with the private sector, particularly with those people who have done most to develop nurseries. We are also, of course, discussing it with the Inland Revenue and the Treasury—I shall keep the hon. Lady informed. She has come to the Dispatch Box and raised an important point.

Oral Answers to Questions — Women's Interests

Laura Moffatt: What steps the Government have taken to ensure that women's interests are taken account of in each Government Department. [42931]

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What plans she has to ensure that Government Departments take proper account of women's interests. [42944]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): Men and women lead substantially different lives and the Government need to be aware of the different impact that our policies have on women. On 18 May, I launched our mainstreaming initiative to put women's interests at the heart of Government via a simple three-stage process to identify the impact of policy, consult on the impact and act on what we find to ensure that policies are delivered equally for women and for men.

Laura Moffatt: Mainstreaming is the best way forward to ensure complete equality throughout Government policy, but I must raise one issue—monitoring. How will the House know that those issues are properly monitored throughout the lifetime of this Parliament to ensure that, at every turn, that policy is brought to the Government's attention and is part and parcel of everything that they do?

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. One way in which we are already ensuring that that happens is by having Ministers for Women such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is demonstrating the way forward in our proposals for pension sharing on divorce—a clear response to the needs of women. All Departments and their policy makers will in future have access to training on those issues. The women's unit will produce quarterly bulletins to share good practice and to publicise successes. We will work with colleagues from all Government Departments to establish a monitoring regime, which will feed into an annual report, so that my hon. Friend's concerns can be properly addressed.

Mrs. Fyfe: Did my hon. Friend notice the bravehearts in the Scottish National party this weekend scoring an own goal by rejecting any positive measures to ensure


equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament, leaving Labour the only party in Scotland holding the trophy for the fight for equal rights for men and women? This morning, I saw many of the tartan army set off for France, and noticed that the Lord Chancellor was not among their number. I suggest that he might like to join in, even at this eleventh hour, because, while he is in France, he could take the opportunity to discuss the equal treatment directive, which has proved no obstacle to French politicians, but seems to be an insuperable obstacle, for some reason, to many of our Law Officers.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Equal Opportunities Commission recently conducted a consultation exercise in the United Kingdom on our equality laws, which included their relevance to political parties. When the EOC reports to the Government, my hon. Friend can be assured that the Ministers for Women will engage in discussions with all our right hon. and hon. Friends on that matter. I very much note, as she does, that ours remains the only party committed to achieving equal numbers of women and men candidates for the Scottish Parliament, unlike the Scottish National party and other Opposition parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — Income Support (Lone Parents)

Mr. Tony McNulty: What action the Government have taken to help lone parents on income support get into work. [42934]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): We have established the new deal for lone parents to help them get off income support and into work so that they and their children can have a better standard of living than they could have on benefits. The early results of the new deal have been encouraging. More parents are going into work and lone parents and their children are better off by, on average, £39 a week and the taxpayer is better off by, on average, £42 a week.

Mr. McNulty: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite all the blather, under the new deal lone parents are significantly better off than they ever were under the Tories? At the same time, will she join me to condemn the intolerant and extremist language used at the weekend about lone parents by the shadow Secretary of State for Health?

Ms Harman: Our concern is to help lone parents do what they want to do, which is to provide a better standard of living for themselves and their children. Ours is not to judge how it came to be a lone parent family. Such families arise through many different circumstances and many parents never set out to be lone parents. What is encouraging is that, in the past three months, 30,000 fewer lone mothers have been on income support than previously. That shows that they are moving into work, combining their work and family responsibilities. They are then better off; we have discovered that, on average, they are better off by £39 a week, which is more than they could ever have been paid on benefits.

Mr. David Rendel: I welcome any efforts that the Government may make to encourage

opportunities for lone parents to get back into work where they wish to do so. However, is there not a problem for lone parents who have children under five and who may wish to choose not to go into work? Given the benefit cuts for lone parents—partly offset, admittedly, by child benefit increases—what further effort does the Secretary of State intend to make to allow such lone parents a real choice of whether to go back to work?

Ms Harman: The problem in the past was not that lone parents did not have the choice to stay at home—more than 1 million of them stayed at home on income support, bringing up 2 million children—but that too few lone parents were able to go out to work. The Government's policies of giving advice and support to help them into work, ensuring help with the costs of child care and ensuring that quality child care is available, provide the choice that was previously not available. The new deal for lone parents is directed at those with children over five. If the hon. Member examines the figures, he will find that more than half the number of married mothers with children under five go out to work. No one is forcing them to do so. They have the choice, and they are taking the opportunities. We are making sure that lone parents can do the same, be better off and save the taxpayer money.

Mr. Simon Burns: As the Secretary of State has invited the House to consider the figures, will she, too, consider them carefully? Will she express concern that 75 per cent. of lone mothers who receive a letter calling them for an interview totally disregard the invitation? Does she recognise that, of the 6 per cent. of lone mothers who are getting jobs, 15 per cent. fall back into unemployment and on to state benefits in the first three months? To help to offset those statistics, will she consider bringing in a compulsory element for lone mothers to attend the first interview, although I do not suggest a compulsory element, a la Wisconsin, for the whole scheme? Will she accept that that would help to prevent her baby—her brainchild since 1 May 1997—from becoming an expensive, failed soundbite?

Ms Harman: The problem that we have had with the new deal for lone parents—although the early results have been encouraging—is that we have had to phase the roll-out, and do it slowly and at a measured pace to keep up with demand from lone parents for the advice, information and support that we are offering. The hon. Gentleman has it wrong: the problem is not that we have personal advisers aplenty, specially trained but drumming their fingers as they wait for lone parents to come in, but that a great number of lone parents who have never before been offered a service want to take it up.

Mr. Burns: Seventy-five per cent. are ignoring it.

Ms Harman: We are well on target toward meeting our expectations and costings. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that his Government never recognised that lone mothers wanted to work. If lone mothers did struggle into work, it was despite, rather than because of, that Government. The new deal is welcomed by lone parents and employers, and it is making a difference. Our interim findings show that more lone parents than would otherwise have got into work are going into work as a result of the new deal.

Oral Answers to Questions — Retirement Incomes

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Pursuant to the Green Paper on welfare reform, what calculations her Department made to assess adequate levels of income for those in retirement. [42935]

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Although the debate about adequacy is important, the Government's priority is getting additional funds to pensioners. The Government have today published proposals on pension sharing on divorce, which will ensure that many more women will have more adequate pensions when they come to retire than they would otherwise have had.

Mr. Swayne: May I turn the Minister's attention to stakeholder pensions? What guarantee can he give to investors in such pensions that they will be able to buy an adequate annuity, given the nature of such instruments, the prices and values of which can fluctuate?

Mr. Field: The aim of stakeholder pensions is to improve—substantially, we hope—on what is currently offered in private personal pensions.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least satisfactory way of getting extra income to pensioners is through more means-tested benefits? Pensioners, more than any other section of the community, have great difficulty with claiming such benefits, as they think that it is demeaning. If we rely on such benefits to get money to the poorest pensioners, many of them will lose out and suffer as a consequence.

Mr. Field: I totally agree, and that is why the Government have emphasised the importance of reducing value added tax on fuel and have introduced the winter fuel bonus. If I may, I will pose the question back to my hon. Friend: what should the Government do when a million pensioners—the poorest, oldest and frailest—fail to claim income support? Should we not be concerned to ensure that they claim what they are entitled to? We believe that we should be, and we are.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given the Minister's comments a few seconds ago, and the report last week that said that the Government would not reach the targets necessary to provide income for the poorest people, will he tell us whether the Government can absolutely rule out doing what his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) suggested might be done, and rolling together and means-testing all income for retired pensioners? Will he rule that out until after the next general election?

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman misleads the House. The report says—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House. Would the Minister choose another form of words, as I am sure that he does not mean that?

Mr. Field: He misled me, Madam Speaker, and to ensure that my mind is sorted out, perhaps I could explain the matter to the House.
Last week's report suggested that, if we continued the policies of the previous Administration, we would not reach our targets, and that is why we are undertaking a review and will publish a Green Paper, and why we will make a fundamental change.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I am asking the Minister a simple question, which he has not answered: will he now take the opportunity absolutely to rule out means-testing the basic state pension by rolling it up with all income for pensioners, so that pensioners can rest at ease?

Mr. Field: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has twisted and turned in recent weeks, to enable him to drop the previous Government's commitment on the basic state pension, but the Government's position is clear: we gave a manifesto commitment that we would not means-test the basic state pension during our stewardship.

Oral Answers to Questions — Benefits (Scotland)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions she has had with local authorities about the delivery of benefits in Scotland. [42936]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): As part of our active modern service programme, officials have met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss a number of ways in which closer working between the Benefits Agency and Scottish local authorities can improve services to customers and help to tackle fraud.

Mr. Dalyell: Local officers of the Department have worked extremely well and satisfactorily in recent years with the local authorities, but, with the unbundling of the United Kingdom and the dewiring of the whole tax system—as the Minister will have found on his recent welcome visit to Edinburgh—are not certain problems posed by devolution that should be discussed early by the directors of social work?

Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Clearly, the discussions will continue, but, on my recent visit to Edinburgh, where I spoke at a conference with staff from the Benefits Agency and took the opportunity to meet representatives of other agencies, it was clear that the good working relationships would continue. Under active modern service, we will develop new initiatives to ensure a better service for all customers in Scotland.

Mr. John Swinney: Bearing in mind the success of some local authorities in boosting the take-up of benefits, does the Minister envisage any role for the Scottish Parliament in drawing together the work of those local authorities and in the discussions with the Department, so that those in Scotland who are entitled to benefits receive sufficient information and advice to ensure that they get them?

Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that that item is on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament when it is established.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioner Poverty

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the extent of pensioner poverty. [42937]

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If she will make a statement on Government action in respect of assistance for the poorest pensioners. [42940]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): For today's pensioners, the policies of the previous Administration created growing inequality and widespread insecurity. One in four pensioners are forced to depend on income support, or fail to receive it. We have commissioned research to find out why those people do not make a claim and we are running pilots in nine areas to find the best ways of getting more automatic help to them. The introduction of pension sharing on divorce, on which we have published draft clauses today, will also help to ensure that women are able to enjoy their fair share of pension income in retirement.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that answer implies that people simply cannot live on the basic state pension alone? Indeed, last week's Ross report told us that 2.5 million pensioner households are on less than a third of average earnings. Is he aware that, in my constituency, 30 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age and that, having seen the new deal for the young, the long-term unemployed, lone parents, disabled people and schools, many of those pensioners are looking to the pensions review to provide a new deal for today's pensioners?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: most people who enjoy security in retirement have two sources of pension income—the basic state pension and a second pension. That is why we want to extend the range of those people who can enjoy access to a good, value-for-money, second pension. The position of pensioners, on which we have already taken action through the cut on value added tax on fuel, the increase in the basic state pension and the introduction of winter fuel payments, is, of course, a key part of the pensions review, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.

Mr. Quinn: I do not know whether the Minister realises this, but, in the county of North Yorkshire, some 14,000 people over 60 are failing to get the extra support that income support offers them. I find many times at my surgery that people from more rural and sparsely populated parts of my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby are failing to realise that those benefits are available to them.
On the pilot studies that the Minister mentioned earlier, I wonder whether some consideration might be given to those rural constituents, to find out whether they can have extra help in understanding what their entitlement is.

Mr. Denham: I can assure my hon. Friend that the pilot project areas cover a range of urban, suburban and rural areas and that we are working with local authorities to find the best ways of getting more automatic help to those pensioners. We are particularly keen to use the information that is already available to the Benefits

Agency or local authorities, and the information that exists on retirement pensions, to identify those older people who are most likely to be entitled to income support and to find the best ways of approaching them to encourage them to make a claim for that income support.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister recall seeing the headline in The Independent on Friday, saying that millions face poverty because of pensions inadequacy? Does he accept that part of that problem was caused by the Chancellor's raid on pension funds? What will the Minister do to alert pensioners to the need to add much more to their pension provision to receive the same return that they would have had before the Chancellor's raid? Will he also bear in mind the predicament of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who is being widely leaked against as likely to be pensioned off by the end of the summer?

Mr. Denham: I believe that I am right in saying that Friday's newspaper headlines were reporting the conclusions of the pensions review group, which showed clearly what a pensions problem we face because of the policies of the previous Government. That includes the many people who were mis-sold personal pensions because the previous Government got it so badly wrong. The group also confirms that we are right to attach the importance that we do to introducing a new framework for second-tier pensions and stakeholder pensions, and the measures that we have announced today on pension sharing on divorce, as ways of tackling under-provision.

Mr. Steve Webb: When the statistics for the first year of the new Labour Government become available, does the Minister believe that they will show that pensioner poverty has risen or fallen?

Mr. Denham: People will look at the record of our first year and will recognise that the basic state pension was put up by more than the previous Government had provided for; that for the first time a Government made winter fuel payments—10 million of them to 7 million households; and that for the first time a Government have set about practical action to tackle the problems of pensioners who do not claim income support, to find the best way of getting more automatic help to them. That is a record of which we can be proud.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Minister agree that some of the poorest pensioners are those who, during their working lives, gave up their careers to care for members of their families—perhaps a spouse with dementia or an elderly relative? As this is the start of Carers Week, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will have regard to the pension rights of Britain's carers, so that some of our most responsible citizens no longer have to pay a penalty in poverty?

Mr. Denham: I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend's work in introducing the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 during the previous Parliament; it represented a major step forward in recognising the rights of carers. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. We, in turn, are right to explore ways of establishing a citizenship pension for carers, to enable


those of them who are unable to contribute to a second pension to avoid being on means-tested benefits in retirement.
We are also right to introduce pension sharing on divorce. That will ensure that women—it is generally women—who do not build up their own pension rights because of family responsibilities can share fairly in the pension rights that the household builds up while they support a family at home.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am afraid that the Minister has already given the House a rather disingenuous response. It is not true that the Government have put up the state retirement pension by more than the Conservative Government would have done. The Conservative Government would have put it up according to increases in prices, and the Labour Government have done exactly the same—despite pretending, when in opposition, that they would restore the earnings link.
Is it not correct that the proposed stakeholder pension will do absolutely nothing for the poorer pensioners who, according to the Government's own pension provision group report last Thursday, will continue to depend on state means-tested benefits?

Mr. Denham: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, although he has already had a few dry runs in previous debates.
The Government have honoured their manifesto commitment to raise the basic state pension at least in line with prices. It is a matter of fact that we had to find substantially more resources to meet that commitment than the previous Administration had budgeted for.
We believe that stakeholder pensions will provide an opportunity for millions of people on modest incomes and for those with intermittent working patterns to obtain value for money via a flexible second pension. They cannot do that at the moment, either because they do not have an occupational pension, or because personal pensions can be inflexible and subject to high charges. Of course we recognise, as the Secretary of State did last Thursday, that there are those who will continue to need the support and help of the state if they are to avoid poverty in retirement—we have always recognised that.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my colleague on the work he is doing to bring about pension fairness for people on low incomes. We should take no lessons from the Conservatives; it was the Tories who cut the link between wages and pensions, thereby costing a single person about £22 a week.
Will the Minister seriously consider resuming the link between wages and pensions? The gap between them needs to be examined to put right the damage done to many pensioners by the Tory Government.

Mr. Denham: Of course, the future uprating of the basic state pension is one of the critical issues for the pensions review. I hope that everybody in the House and outside will carefully read and study the report by the pension provision group chaired by Tom Ross, which was published last Thursday. It is the first time a Government have set out clearly an independent analysis of the pensions challenge that we face.
The decisions that need to be taken in the pensions review, which will be published later this year, on issues such as the uprating of the basic state pension, will have to take into account the conclusions of the Ross report.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensions Review

Mr. Bob Russell: When she expects to publish the pensions review. [42939]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): As set out in the Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare", we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final, detailed proposals are developed.

Mr. Russell: That would be counted by every pensioner as a disappointing response, especially bearing in mind the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), in which he referred to the growing inequality and widespread insecurity among pensioners in this country. Does he agree that today's pensioners are more interested in today's pensions than in yesterday's Government or tomorrow's pensioners? Does he also agree that the manifesto pledge to assist pensioners has been somewhat forgotten?

Mr. Denham: I do not agree that the Government have forgotten today's pensioners. No previous Government have introduced winter fuel payments—spending £200 million last winter and another £200 million next winter is an act of support for today's pensioners that would not have been made by the Conservative party, had it won the last election. Nor would the Conservatives have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.—indeed, as we know, they wanted, more or less, to double the rate of VAT on fuel. In our first year, we have achieved a great deal for pensioners, we have invested more in the national health service and in public transport and we are tackling the problems of crime and disorder through the Crime and Disorder Bill.
The pensions review is of great importance for today's pensioners and for tomorrow's, but it is essential that we get it right, because we have seen the mistakes made under the previous Administration, who made pensions changes that led to millions of people leaving occupational pension schemes and millions of people suffering from pensions mis-selling. We are determined to make sure that the decisions we take, for today and for the future, are right.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In the review, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that between 1990 and 1994, the value of annuities fell in real terms by 34 per cent., which means that those with a personal pension lost one third of it? That is in addition to the problems caused by the mis-selling of pensions and by between one quarter and one half of contributions being taken in charges. It has been proved that those who mis-sold pensions provided pensions of poor value that were a gamble, with the lottery of money purchase at the other end. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the new stakeholder


pensions, which are very necessary, are introduced, they will not be run by the same people who robbed millions of people in the personal pensions scandal?

Mr. Denham: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the action being taken by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clear up the problems of pensions mis-selling that we inherited from the previous Administration. He raises the question of annuities and I can confirm that ways of translating pension savings into retirement income are an important issue for the pensions review and one that we are examining. In developing stakeholder pension schemes, we have said that we wish those to be collective schemes which reach high minimum benchmark standards and that, through trusteeship or a similar mechanism, we shall ensure that they are run in the interests of their members.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out, once and for all, compulsory saving as a basis for the new pensions era? Does he accept that, were a pension scheme—perhaps a properly run one—to go bust for one reason or another, the state would be, in honour, obliged to step in if people had been forced to save into the scheme? Because it would be most likely to occur at the worst possible moment in the economic cycle, that would represent a huge increased risk to the public purse, as well as an unfair extra hidden tax on many people on modest incomes.

Mr. Denham: There are already compulsory contributions to the basic state pension for all those earning above a minimum income and to a second pension for other employees, so employees are in either the state earnings-related pension scheme or a funded, invested second pension. We made it clear in the welfare reform Green Paper that there had been many representations calling for an extension of compulsion, either to raise the level of pension benefits or to extend their coverage. We said in that Green Paper that we shall seriously consider those proposals. In a number of speeches and seminars I have called for a better-focused debate on whether there should be an extension of compulsion and we shall report our conclusions on that in the Green Paper later this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Women (Violence)

Mr. John Heppell: If she will make a statement on the guidance issued by her Department to local authorities in respect of violence against women. [42942]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): The Ministers for Women are working across all Government Departments to ensure that best practice is followed in tackling all forms of violence against women. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently issued guidance to local authorities, reminding them of the help available from the housing benefit scheme to victims of domestic violence. However, we are aware that women are not always offered the full range of support services that they need, so we are developing a national strategy to prevent violence, to protect women and to deliver justice for women.

Mr. Heppell: I am well aware of some of those initiatives. Indeed, £94,000 of lottery funds will be given to Nottinghamshire domestic violence forum and more than £280,000 will be used to set up a network of child contact centres to allow parents access that they would not otherwise have to their children. Will the Minister tell me how those local initiatives will be developed into a national Government strategy to deal with violence against women?

Ms Ruddock: I congratulate the people in my hon. Friend's area who are running such vital services, which we would like other areas to provide. In trying to find out where the best practice exists, the Ministers for Women have recently written to all local authorities and chief constables asking them to tell us precisely what they are doing, and 102 local authorities have already responded, as have 41 of the 43 chief constables. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that in his area the police and the local council have responded. The police there tell me that they have a strong policy of intervention in domestic violence cases with the expectation of arresting perpetrators, which is precisely what should be done. We shall make the survey results available to hon. Members. I hope that in the meantime, all hon. Members will take the trouble to find out what local provision there is to tackle this most pernicious of crimes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Disability Living Allowance

Mr. John McAllion: How many claimants in receipt of disability living allowance have been subject to the benefit integrity project, to date. [42943]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): As at 31 March 1998, a total of 72,470 cases, including 14,815 renewal cases, had been examined under the benefit integrity project. A more detailed monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons Library.

Mr. McAllion: A few months ago, figures supplied to me by a Government official showed that for every claimant who had benefits increased as a result of the benefit integrity project, 10 had their benefits reduced or stopped. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the situation has improved since then, by which I mean that fewer claimants are having their benefits cut or stopped? If it has not improved, will he tell the House whether the Government share the view of the Social Security Committee, which in its recent report called for the project to be put on six months' probation, with a view to closing it down if it does not stop putting people with disabilities at an even greater disadvantage?

Mr. Denham: First, no one who is entitled to disability living allowance should have anything to fear from the benefit integrity project. It is important that we make the right decisions about benefit entitlement, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced new procedures into the project in February, and further improvements have subsequently been made. The report of the Social Security Committee is important. We are considering it and we shall respond to the House in the normal way in due course.

Mr. Edward Leigh: As a member of the Social Security Committee, I ask the Minister whether he has managed to improve control mechanisms in his Department. We must never again see the sort of anguish that was caused by the introduction of this project. The Minister responsible heard about it only a month after its introduction, by way of a telephone call on Preston railway station.

Mr. Denham: The report raises several important issues that we shall address in future. The benefit integrity project was designed under the previous Administration. The Government have taken a series of steps that aim to improve the operation of the benefit integrity project and to ensure that the correct decisions are taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it was necessary for us to take that action and will commend us for doing so.

Dr. Brian Iddon: A few months ago, I raised concerns in this place about the way in which seriously mentally ill people were being treated by the benefit integrity project. At that time, the Secretary of State kindly informed me that she was involved in discussions with Mencap. In view of the fact that seriously mentally ill people in my constituency continue to lose disability living allowance, will the Minister say whether those discussions have concluded and, if so, whether any special treatment will be given to the seriously mentally ill who are losing DLA contrary to medical advice?

Mr. Denham: At this stage I can confirm that we have agreed to exclude some further categories of people—particularly those aged over 65 who will not be contacted—from the benefit integrity project. My right hon. Friend has agreed to consider the possibility of extending the groups exempt from the project, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the direct response that he seeks this afternoon.

Mr. Damian Green: What discussions she has had with representatives of disability groups concerning the taxation of disability living allowance. [42945]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): Any discussions have been of a general, rather than specific, nature—for example, in the recent meetings arranged by Mencap. We have made it clear in our Green Paper that DLA will remain a national and universal benefit and, as such, will not be subject to a means test. Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have no current plans to tax DLA.

Mr. Green: I must press the Minister a little further. Will he rule out definitively, once and for all, any prospect of the Government taxing disability living allowance?

Mr. Denham: I must repeat the reply that I have given. Taxation is always a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I can confirm that we have no current plans to tax DLA—and nor was there any suggestion of taxing it in the welfare reform Green Paper.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that all hon. Members will welcome his comment that there is absolutely no justification for taxing disability benefits, which are not taxed at present? One trusts that that will remain the Government's position now and upon their re-election.

Mr. Denham: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Care Disregard

Jackie Ballard: What representations she has received about child care costs disregard for carers in receipt of family credit; and if she will make a statement. [42946]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The child care disregard is regularly raised in correspondence about family credit and we have acted to improve the help available. From last Monday, we increased the limit on help for families with two or more children from £60 to £100 and extended the age limit for one year. For the future, we have announced our intention to introduce a more generous child care tax credit, which, for a couple earning £23,000 a year with two children, could be worth £45 per week. We have also launched the working benefits campaign, which I know will be successful in improving the take-up of in-work benefits.

Jackie Ballard: I thank the Minister for that reply. What advice would he give to my constituent who is a single parent and works shifts as a nurse at the local hospital? A nanny is the most flexible and appropriate form of child care for her, but the costs of nannies are not disregarded when calculating family credit. Do the Government intend to change that arrangement because a nanny may be the most appropriate form of child care for many people, particularly lone parents? If the reason for not counting the costs is that nannies are not a registered form of child care, will the Government introduce a national registration scheme for nannies?

Mr. Bradley: I am obviously aware of the problems that the hon. Lady raises. We are anxious to ensure that standards of care are maintained, that all child care is quality child care, and that it is accessible and affordable. We shall consider registering nanny agencies, and I shall study the hon. Lady's argument with care.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her new deal for lone parents? The child care package is crucial to its success. Does the Minister agree, however, that as 40 per cent. of lone parents lack any educational qualification, education and training will be crucial to prevent them from being locked in the poverty pay sector?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point because—as I am sure that he is aware—in the pilot areas we have invested £10 million in training to tackle that problem. We are carefully studying the results of that investment, to ascertain the best way to proceed, and to ensure that that difficulty is properly addressed in the national roll-out.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners' Incomes

Mr. John Hutton: What assessment she has made of inequality of income among pensioners. [42948]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Income inequality between the best and worst-off pensioners has grown since 1979, and estimates show that this inequality is set to widen in future, on the basis of current policies.
A key objective of our pensions review is to tackle the growth in pensioner inequality, to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in rising national prosperity.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply because it confirms that it is the Government's policy to reverse the widening trends of pensioner inequality. What progress is being made, in the nine pilot projects, in determining why 1 million pensioners currently fail to claim their income support entitlement? Will he make it his policy to reverse the appalling legacy that we inherited from the previous Government, so that pensioners, especially in my constituency, may look forward to dignity and security in retirement?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the pilot projects. For 18 years, the previous Administration made no attempt to ensure that the poorest pensioners received the support to which they were entitled. It is important that we find the best ways to get more automatic help to those pensioners. I am informed that it is a little early to draw conclusions from the pilot projects, which started in April; we shall get the full report when they have run for six months. However, if we are able to report on early progress and early lessons, I shall certainly wish to keep my hon. Friend and the House informed of that progress.

Mr. John Bercow: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in seeking—rightly—to tackle inequality among pensioners, it is important to avoid giving assistance to those pensioners who do not need it, are not entitled to it and, in many cases, do not want it. In that context, can he tell the House today how many cheques for winter fuel payments were sent out in error, the cost of that error, and the proportion of that unwarranted cost that has been written off by his incompetent Department?

Mr. Denham: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures, but my recollection is that about 10,000

payments were made that were not in accordance with the legislation and regulation at that time. That is regrettable, but it was a tiny proportion of the 10 million payments that were made to pensioners in 7 million households. Regarding recovery, each case is being treated on its individual merits, and that is obviously the right way for us to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Family-friendly Working Arrangements

Lorna Fitzsimons: What were the Belfast EU presidency conclusions on women and employability relating to family-friendly working arrangements. [42949]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): Family-friendly working arrangements are a key issue of our time and are important to women and men across Europe. The conference provided a valuable opportunity to explore the opportunities for achieving a successful balance between paid work and family life, and to share examples of good practice which member states can consider in the context of their own policies.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand it, the Belfast summit issued a communiqué. As a result of the listening to women exercise, the Ministers for Women identified as a priority the fact that some of the good policies that were identified at Belfast and mentioned in the communiqué were not mainstreamed at a United Kingdom level. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that if the communiqué is to achieve something—which is important for women in my constituency and elsewhere—it should be mainstreamed throughout the European Union? What efforts are the Ministers for Women making to ensure that the valuable discussions in Belfast and the communiqué on family-friendly employment have wider effect throughout the European Union?

Ms Ruddock: The full text of the Belfast communique is available in the Library and I hope that hon. Members will go to get a copy. We found at the conference, first, that quality child care, parental and other forms of leave and family-friendly working practices are essential to women and men if we are to combine paid work with family life and, secondly, that equality between women and men must be mainstreamed into all employment policies—as my hon. Friend suggests—both nationally and throughout the European Union.
Those are new and important conclusions for the women of Europe and we are ensuring that they are built into the preparations for the final summit of our presidency, which takes place in Cardiff next week.

Dounreay

Mr. Robert Maclennan: (by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the Government's decision to discontinue reprocessing nuclear material at Dounreay.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Dounreay has played a significant role in the development of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. The experimental fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay, built in the 1950s, was followed by a prototype fast-breeder reactor. Both aimed to show that fast-breeder reactor technology could be harnessed to generate electricity on a commercial scale.
Last Friday I informed the House, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), that the Government had accepted the advice of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority board that Dounreay should accept no new contracts for commercial reprocessing work.
The decision will allow the UKAEA to refocus on the management of its existing liabilities, of which by far the majority have arisen from the UKAEA's own Government-funded nuclear reactor development programmes on the Dounreay site. I stress that those liabilities already exist—and they must be dealt with. No amount of wishful thinking will make them go away.
Subject to the necessary consents being obtained from the independent regulators—the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—I expect the UKAEA to continue to reprocess the existing spent fuel liabilities, the majority of which came from the reactors that operated at Dounreay. It will also reprocess material from existing, committed, legally binding commercial contracts and the small amount of material from Georgia. I am advised by the UKAEA that it expects to have completed all that reprocessing work by 2006. After that, the work of decommissioning the reprocessor will take place.
I remind the House that the Dounreay site was set up to undertake development work on fast-breeder reactor technology. Although the work on that programme was a technical success, it was decided to stop funding the programme in 1988, when it became clear that there was no prospect of the technology fully living up to its economic potential. The development programme finally stopped in 1994, when the last reactor was switched off. Obviously, it has generated no electricity since then.
The focus of activity at the site has shifted inevitably to decommissioning the reactors. Dounreay's main mission has been to decommission completely the facilities on the site. The concern now is to ensure that we pass on to future generations a safe environment at Dounreay. We are deeply committed to caring for the environment and to taking action to deal safely with the difficult legacy from past operations at Dounreay.
We want the focus now to be on decommissioning the plant and securing the site at Dounreay. Subject to satisfying the strict safety and environmental requirements of the independent regulators, commercial reprocessing was accepted as a way of offsetting some of the costs of

decommissioning and waste management at Dounreay, but as the UKAEA itself has recently concluded as a result of surveying the international market, further commercial reprocessing would not be economic. Giving up that sort of work is therefore the next step in achieving the main goal: refocusing the site to ensure safe and cost-effective clean-up.
I know that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) shares my concern about the impact of this decision, perhaps, on jobs at Dounreay. I have been assured by Dounreay's operator, the UKAEA, that it does not expect significant short-term job losses as the staff currently working on reprocessing will be redeployed to other nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management work and will carry that expertise internationally in future.
In March, I announced the Government's decision to retrieve the waste from the Dounreay shaft, which will provide work at the site for several decades at least. Cleaning up the site will inevitably take more than 100 years. The process of decommissioning will now be the business of Dounreay.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for that reply, notwithstanding the fact that it expressly contradicts the answer he gave in a written answer on Friday in that it attributes the decision to discontinue commercial reprocessing to the specific advice of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, whereas on Friday the Minister said that it was due to the authority having indicated that there was no longer-term prospect for commercial reprocessing. Perhaps in the interests of open government the Minister will be kind enough to place in the Library the precise terms of the advice that has been given.
Does the Minister recognise that the cack-handed approach to the presentation of this issue has created nothing but confusion, with headlines persisting even until today in the Scottish newspapers about the proposed closure of Dounreay—indeed, the Government's decision to close Dounreay? How can there be anything else but confusion when Ministers' offices at the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, the Minister's Department, are issuing contradictory briefings to the press?
What are the Government's intentions about further fostering the science-based industries in the north? When the previous Government announced in 1988 the decision to end the fast-breeder reactor programme, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, who is still with us as chairman of the Conservative party, announced the intention to spend about £9 million on promoting new science-based work in the area. Some of that has already begun to come through, but it requires continuing effort and commitment on the part of the Government to build on the skills and science resources that have been accumulated over two generations at Dounreay to ensure that there is a proper future for the immediate area and the entire north of Scotland.

Mr. Battle: I am sure that my office contacted the right hon. Gentleman's office to ensure that he was well informed that the written question would be answered on Friday. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the text of the answer. It reads:
The UKAEA have advised me that there is no economic case for supporting commercial reprocessing at Dounreay over the longer term."—[Official Report, 5 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 385.]


We endorse the UKAEA's view that no more commercial contracts should be let. That was the point of the statement. That is what we said. I do not see why there is confusion about it.
I appreciate, however, that people talk—even Opposition Members occasionally, it is reported—about the closure of the plant as if it has suddenly shut down. That is not what has happened. The Scottish National party in particular put round the rumour that the whole thing can go away overnight. That is not the case. There are 100 years of work left because of decommissioning.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that AEA Technology only recently, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, decided that a new foresight programme—the battery project—should be sited at Dounreay and use the technical expertise of the people there. That is new investment. If I remember rightly, it is a joint venture with the Japanese. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is not the case that the plant is being closed down overnight, contrary to some of the rumours that have been put around.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I complained to his office in rather bitter terms on Friday, the Minister telephoned me himself; I thank him for his courtesy.
Is not there a problem of morale at Dounreay? Ministers talk about the need for a safe environment until 2006 and for many years after, so is not it important that extremely good people are kept at Dounreay to undertake the management? Granted the disastrous decision was made back in 1988—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that that is the root of the trouble, as my hon. Friend suggests. It was made against the wishes of many of us. On the problem of morale and keeping good people at Dounreay, what positive proposals can be offered to ensure the safety that all of us regard as paramount?

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I cannot answer for decisions made during the past 10 or 20 years—indeed, over the past 30 or 40 years. We inherited a situation and decided to take the advice that we were given, which was that Dounreay should take on no further commercial reprocessing work, that it should handle the liabilities it has inherited from its reactors, that it should deal with the contracts that are still legally binding and in place and that it should deal with the tiny, tiny amount of Georgian waste. Dounreay has work to get on with.
The whole point of the decision is to have a clear focus for the plant and for the work force so that they know what they will be getting on with rather than wondering whether future contracts will come. That was generating uncertainty; we have cut through that and given a clear sense of direction for the future.
According to one estimate, a work force of about 1,200 will be needed at the plant to deal with the liabilities I have described, which is almost as many as are employed today. Let me add that, because of our decision in March to tackle the legacy of the waste shaft,

the shaft retrieval project alone will employ 400 additional people. As people work on decommissioning the reactors, as they are now, their decommissioning skills will be internationally saleable—they will be able to give advice and expertise internationally to tackle the legacy of the problem. I expect staff at Dounreay to have their morale boosted by the decision, not further undermined.

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting the private notice question, which the official Opposition also requested.
The Minister should have had the grace to come to the House to make a statement on Friday. My colleagues and I learned of this important development only from the "Today" programme. We do not see the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House for the announcement of this crucial decision.
The Government are presiding over a complete shambles. First, they tell us that Dounreay is a safe facility and invite in material from Georgia. Then they close an important part of the plant for safety reasons. Then they tell us that they will pay to make the plant work again as it did before. Now they tell us that they will spend a lot of taxpayers' money to make it safe, only to run it down. That is not the usual government by U-turn; it is government in a permanent spin—one spin doctor corrects what another spin doctor said wrongly the day before.
This is no way to run such a sensitive industry, so will the Minister tell us, and the people of Scotland, how much it will cost to repair and improve the plant? What investment are the Government planning to write off when the plant is eventually closed down? What are the estimated costs of the complete rundown? What reassurance can he offer the people of the United Kingdom—and, especially, of Scotland—that the Government will handle things better than they have done over the past year? The shambles is of the Government' s making, not of the previous Government's.
Is the Minister planning to accelerate the rundown of nuclear reactors? What is his current view of the useful life of Magnox stations? Will he apologise for this complete and comprehensive disaster? Does he not see that it now means maximum cost to the taxpayer and minimum benefit for Britain? It is a fitting testimony to months of dithering and contradictory statements.

Mr. Battle: At least we have done our best to sort out the problem that we inherited. The previous Administration would not even admit that the waste shaft existed which, as we have spelt out, will cost £250 million to £300 million to clean up. Where were the previous Administration when they should have been addressing that problem? They were prepared to let it fester.
We shall put the figures in the public domain when the UKAEA spells out the cost of doing the job. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) knows, there has been a lot of alarmist comment recently about safety, but the Health and Safety Executive recently announced that it would undertake a review of management of the site. That review is now under way. I do not seek to pre-empt it; I accept and welcome it and expect the UKAEA to implement the recommendations properly. Nothing is more important than the safe management of these liabilities. Unlike the last lot, we


shall ensure that the funds are provided for the UKAEA to clean up its existing liabilities to the satisfaction of the independent regulators.
The question tabled by the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned "the decision to close" Dounreay. To judge from the comments he made on the media, I think he had the impression that I went up to Dounreay on Friday, looked at the plant, shut the gate and threw the key into the Pentland firth. That was not the case. One cannot do that—the liabilities alone last for 100 years. That is nuclear business.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the mid-1980s, especially during the miners' strike in 1984–85, some of us argued about the dangers of nuclear power? We talked about the massive cost of nuclear power and of decommissioning. We could have done with this kind of Statement 15 years ago: we might then have stopped the Tories closing all those pits when they were in power. Does my hon. Friend believe, contrary to the views of some of my hon. Friends and certainly contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), that this decision will strengthen the Labour Government's hand in the next few days in ensuring that the safety and maintenance of the pits that are in operation will continue?

Mr. Battle: As my hon. Friend knows, we are working hard to ensure that the coal industry is not squeezed out of the marketplace unfairly. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of the past. We have inherited those liabilities; we shall do our best to deal with them and find the funds to meet them. It might have been interesting if the liabilities had been added to the original bill of commissioning so that the cost of electricity at the time was publicly known. That might have resulted in an equation different from that which we inherit today.

Mr. John Swinney: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, when the Prime Minister agreed to accept the consignment of nuclear waste from Georgia—we were told then that Dounreay was the safest place in the world—were the Government in possession of the recommendation to end commercial reprocessing at Dounreay?
Secondly, are the Government now prepared to invest in a centre of excellence for alternative technology research at Dounreay to create long-term, stable employment prospects for people in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Battle: I have heard the canard that I said that Dounreay was the safest place in the world. I actually said on 27 April that the Georgian waste would be "securely and safely" stored at Dounreay—as it is now. Even anti-nuclear campaigners accept that Dounreay is the safest place for it to be stored. What we are debating is setting up the conditions for reprocessing. Of course it is more important that nuclear waste be taken to Dounreay than left in Georgia. I emphasise that our decision to accept the Georgian material was based on non-proliferation treaty grounds. We are a depositor country because we have the expertise to deal with nuclear waste. Rather than leaving the material in

Georgia, we have made an important contribution to world security. The Georgian material is safe and secure in storage at Dounreay, awaiting reprocessing. I would be grateful if some hon. Members—perhaps not the hon. Gentleman—stopped circulating rumours to the contrary and using scare tactics to suggest that the material is not safely stored. It certainly is.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the simple truth that there have been two errors of judgment over Dounreay? First, there was the Conservative Government's decision in 1988 to cancel and destroy Britain's forefront-of-technology fast-breeder reactor programme—the most advanced in the world. Secondly, the Scottish National party decided repeatedly to run anti-nuclear scaremongering campaigns to promote hysteria over nuclear power throughout Scotland in order to win votes. Should not the people of the north of Scotland reject the SNP and all that it stands for?

Mr. Battle: I think that, sometimes, the very word nuclear is massively misunderstood—even when applied to medicine. People are now objecting to x-rays due to the use of irradiated material. It does not help when people raise the temperature. About 4,000 people with great expertise work in the nuclear industry in Scotland. Those who criticise the industry should respect that fact. I cannot go over what happened under the previous Administration, except to say that we are bringing matters into the open. That has been the problem in the nuclear industry; decisions have been taken in secret and Ministers have not answered to the House for them. We have changed that. At least we are doing our damnedest to sort out what we inherited.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recall a series of Reith lectures under the arresting title, "The Unimportance of Being Right", in which a retired civil servant, who had a hand in nuclear decisions in the past, described the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme as the most wasteful civil investment decision since the pharaohs decided to build the pyramids? Is not it time that we considered the waste and deception of nuclear power in Britain over the past 40 years, which has left a legacy that will be a headache to our great-grandchildren? Should not we coolly and scientifically review the disaster of deception of the House and the country, as well as the entire reprocessing system and the principle behind it?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is well aware that practically the last decision made by the previous Administration concerned the Nirex proposal. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is considering the future of reprocessing. As everybody knows—and as it was well put—the problem with nuclear waste is that it remains and kills. It has to be dealt with; it cannot be wished away. We must take the best advice and use the most scientifically and technologically advanced methods to deal with the problem so that we pass to the next generation a safer environment than we inherited.

Mr. Peter Viggers: There is still much dangerous nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.


What effect will the decision to stop commercial contracts at Dounreay have on the United Kingdom's ability to deal with the handling of such dangerous material?

Mr. Battle: The decision concerns commercial contracts. The decision on the material from Georgia was not a commercial reprocessing decision. It was a one-off decision as a result of our obligations under international non-proliferation treaties. I imagine that each decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision on Dounreay means that the UKAEA will not be entering into commercial contracts in future—not least because it finds them non-viable. We did the international community a favour by accepting the Georgian waste. We believe that we should act responsibly and make an international contribution.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister understand the scepticism with which his statement has been greeted? Does he acknowledge that the statements made in this place on 22 and 27 April did not mention the prospect of reprocessing being stopped? Does he accept that the decision he has announced today is very difficult to equate with the decision to accept material from Georgia for reprocessing? Will he instruct the UKAEA to prepare an explanatory memorandum setting out the commercial reasons for the decision so that that memorandum can be deposited in the Library? If he does not do that, the House will regard what has been said today as a sop to the Scottish National party.

Mr. Battle: I just wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to what I said. The Georgian uranium was not accepted under a commercial deal—it was a one-off, under international non-proliferation treaties. We accepted it to store it, with a view to reprocessing it. There is a difference there that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not picked up.
We were advised by the UKAEA that it did not want to go ahead with further commercial reprocessing. In other words, it did not want to go around the world seeking contracts. The UKAEA wanted to send a clear signal to those with commercial contracts that Dounreay was not available because it had more than enough to be going on with, which would see it through to a safer and more secure future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In sorting out problems that were largely ignored or made worse by the previous Tory Government, will my hon. Friend bear in mind my plea on behalf of the local fishing communities? Dounreay and Sellafield lie on coastlines close to traditional fishing grounds that are fished by static gear and mobile gear fishermen. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must defend and promote the interests of those fishermen?

Mr. Battle: The answer to my hon. Friend is a forthright yes. We should also respect the full advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the nuclear installations inspectorate—the bodies that give us the best scientific advice on whether the plants should operate and on what terms. The UKAEA takes advice and guidance and—more than that—applies recommendations. The advice received following the review of the management of the site by the HSE will be implemented.

Millennium Compliance

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement reviewing progress on tackling the millennium computer problem within central Government and the wider public sector.
Since my last report to the House on 3 March, I have conducted a further round of inquiries on Government Departments and their agencies, and I am now also able to give a picture of progress in the wider public sector. I am arranging for the completed questionnaires received from Departments in May—and summaries of them and their reports on wider public sector bodies—to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the internet.
Overall, Departments' plans have remained stable since the March review, and very little change in scope has been found necessary. We can now identify target dates for business-critical systems. Most of the returns show progress in correcting business-critical information technology systems. A few show dates uncomfortably close to the end of 1999, although they do not involve organisations that provide services direct to the public.
The overall target dates, and the completion dates for non-critical systems, have moved by a larger margin. There are still cases in which testing seems to have started without a sufficiently defined strategy, and some plans still contain too little information about embedded systems and telecommunication systems. I am following up those issues with the Departments concerned.
The majority of returns have shown little or no change in the overall cost estimates. Departments are now firming up their estimates, and, although some previously small estimates have increased significantly, the overall costs have increased only slightly—they are now £402 million, compared with £393 million in the last round. Departments expect to meet those costs from their existing IT budgets, and only a minority of returns showed that it was necessary to reallocate funds from other budgets. We do not expect operational budgets to be affected.
A majority of the returns showed that Departments and agencies feel that they have adequate skills to undertake the work, although there is a heavy reliance on out-sourcing and consultants. Although about a third of returns stated that shortages of skilled staff could impact on year 2000 programmes, none of the Departments reported a significant loss of skilled staff owing to the millennium problem—where skilled staff turnover is usually high, there seems to be no difficulty in recruiting new staff. Most of the organisations reporting difficulties are small agencies, but the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office also reported that difficulties were being encountered in some areas.
The returns highlight the fact that a number of Departments and agencies are still experiencing difficulties in securing responses from IT suppliers about product compliance. I am asking all Departments and agencies to continue to press for that information. The returns show that many of the major Departments have conducted a full risk assessment and developed business continuity plans. That is a critical issue for all Departments, and Ministers and I will be monitoring it closely.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to report on the position there. Baseline plans for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments were published in December 1997. The current quarterly monitoring process shows that Departments are making good progress, and remain on course to meet the deadline of 31 December 1998 for the conversion and testing of systems, although a small number will not be ready until early 1999.
In response to the concerns expressed in the House, the Prime Minister has extended the remit of the ministerial group on the millennium date change, which I chair, to include the wider public sector. It is, of course, the responsibility of the chief executives of the quangos, authorities and trusts to take effective and timely action on the date change problem to ensure that there is no material disruption to the services they provide, and that appropriate contingency plans are in place.
Nevertheless, the House will be concerned that the public sector as a whole continues to operate effectively after the date change; the ministerial group will take a close interest in progress on that. Ministers have for some time been in touch with the key organisations that they sponsor to emphasise the importance of tackling the date change problem and to help with advice and support. I have asked them to report on those organisations, and I have placed a summary of their responses in the Library and on the internet. I am also encouraging all non-departmental public bodies, organisations and other bodies in the wider public sector to publish their plans for millennium compliance.
The quality of the responses varies. They show that all the organisations covered are aware of the problem and are taking action, but there is clearly a long way to go before we have a complete picture. Some of the organisations are small, and the century date change has few, if any, implications for them. However, others—such as the national health service and local authorities—are critical to ensuring a satisfactory continuation of key public services over the millennium; they will need to reassure the public that they will be able to provide those services.
The National Audit Office report published last month stated that the framework for managing the remedial process in the NHS was in place, but that tight control was needed to ensure success. I welcome the NHS executive's statement that the millennium date change problem is its top non-clinical priority; I expect other wider public sector bodies similarly to treat it as a priority. There is not a great deal of time left to put systems in place if progress has so far been slow.
Ministers and I will be paying particular attention to monitoring progress in those key areas and reporting to the House regularly. The best way to reassure us all is for the bodies themselves to keep the public informed of their plans.
The importance of the year 2000 issue is also widely recognised in the European Union. At the meeting of EU Ministers of Public Administration at Lancaster house on 20 May, Ministers agreed to review progress at the next meeting in Vienna and to exchange information on the action that Governments were taking to help ensure continuity of operations in the public and private sectors.
They invited me to take the lead, and I have today started the process by sending the UK's contribution to this exercise to my European colleagues.
Finally, a new team has been formed within the Cabinet Office reporting to me and the President of the Board of Trade. That "year 2000 team" has strengthened arrangements to drive forward action on the date change, both within Government and through working with Action 2000 in the private sector. The reports we have so far show that the message is certainly getting across, and they provide some reassurances that action is being taken. Equally, they show that we cannot afford to let up the pressure, and that we still need to monitor progress closely. That I will certainly do, and I will continue to report to the House on a quarterly basis.

Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for making that statement. It is most welcome for a Cabinet Minister to come to the House to explain the truthful position about a worrying problem. However, the content of the statement was extremely worrying. It shows the Government at last becoming concerned about the consequences of their own delays and dithering. They are beginning to see the danger of copying the style of Ethelred the Unready—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What did the Conservatives do?"] We left matters in good order; then this Government wasted more than six months before they realised that they had to get on with the job.
The Chancellor now tells us that some Departments are leaving it very late. He says that some do not know how to tackle embedded systems and telecommunications—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because this is very serious for the services that they and their constituents will want.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Get back to the planet Zog.

Mr. Redwood: That was an extremely rude remark from a semi-sedentary position, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know better.
Some people do not know which of the products that they own will work. Meanwhile, costs are going up. Most chilling of all, the Chancellor cannot tell us what the position is for the health service and local authorities, or what the position will be in our hospitals and schools come the millennium.
So will the right hon. Gentleman today confirm that, instead of lecturing the private sector further about the dust in its millennium eye, the Government's efforts will now be concentrated on dealing with the log in the public sector's vision? Will he confirm that the total cost for the complete public sector will now be in excess of £3,000 million? Will he tell us how those sums will be found, in particular by the health service and by local authorities, when both are complaining of cuts and inadequate grants? Where will the money come from? What is he going to do about seeing that it is there?
Will the right hon. Gentleman today give us a guarantee that all medical equipment and systems in the national health service will work on 1 January in the year 2000, or will have been replaced in good time before that date? Will he confirm to all pensioners and people relying on housing benefits or on income support and similar


payments that all those will be paid to the right people in the right way at the right address after 1 January in the year 2000? Is he able to confirm personally and on behalf of the Government that all schools and colleges—all educational establishments—will be able to function normally on or after 1 January in the year 2000?
In short, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a millennium guarantee from the Government that the public sector will be up and running on 1 January 2000? This feeble and cautious prevarication of a statement will not do. The House, and the country, deserve something clearer and better—nothing less than a guarantee that all will work.

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is right in one sense. The previous Administration left the task in good order: the cupboard was bare, but it was very tidy. They left us with practically no plans to work on, although I concede that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who was the Science Minister, worked hard to interest his colleagues in the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that we had waffled and dithered for a long time. We have just received a report from the National Audit Office, "Managing the Millennium Threat II". The first report came in May 1997, and as soon as I received it, I began to take action. We assessed the situation, and I wrote to Departments. We achieved some movement across Government towards having the issue taken seriously.
We have never lectured the private sector. When it comes to millennium compliance, the private and public sectors will have to work together, and we have tried to work to share experiences. I pay tribute to those in the private sector who have helped us to devise our plans.
The right hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions, the first of which was about the total cost. No one has any idea what that will be for the public sector. However, on 30 March, the Prime Minister announced a major initiative on the millennium bug, and he said that he felt that the current estimate of up to £3 billion was probably as good a guess as any.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the national health service and the Department of Social Security. Let me refer him to the second NAO report, which, regarding the NHS, states on page 6:
The framework for managing the remedial programme is now in place but its size and its complexity are such that very tight control will now be required at all levels to ensure success.
We accept that, and shall work to ensure success. On the DSS, the report simply says:
The Department's approach to project management complies with best practice recommended by CCTA.
No one pretends the solution is easy. There is a major problem, which must be tackled, and I am trying to work with the House, as all of us have a responsibility to ensure that this country and its citizens do not suffer when 2000 comes around.

Mr. Brian White: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in certain parts of the country, skills shortages and poaching by other firms are causing a problem in the public sector? Does he accept that we are getting close to the date on which that will cause millennium problems, which could come in the

autumn of this year? His comment that some programmes may slip into 1999 was worrying; can he assure us that testing will not be squeezed as a result of that slippage?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the actions of the Government, most significant problems have been addressed, and it is not likely that we will hit a major problem on 1 January 2000? What is more likely is that there will be a large number of small problems, none of which individually will be problematic, but all of which taken together may cause serious difficulties. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps that he proposes to take on that? Finally, what steps does he propose to take to help third-world countries for which there will be a major problem?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has considerable expertise on these matters, and he has poignantly identified the key areas. We are certainly aware that, although there may be no skills shortage today, the problem will become more difficult as we move towards the key date. It was partly for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £100 million in the Budget for improving IT excellence, 30 per cent. of which will go towards trying to tackle the millennium bug.
We are prepared to offer up to £1,300 per trainee for people from small companies and others—companies which may not be critical but which are none the less vital for society's interconnections—to go for training. We have also established MISC 4, a Cabinet Committee completely committed to considering contingency planning and the interrelationship between various aspects of both private and public industry and service providers.

Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome the Minister's statement, and especially the announcement that his working group's remit will be widened to cover the whole public sector. That is an important, if slightly belated, step in the right direction. Will he confirm that much of the statement—this certainly applies to the figures that it contains—refers simply to central Government Departments rather than to the wider public sector and the public services on which the ordinary citizen depends? We are delighted that ministerial laptops will be working when the new millennium comes, but will the computer systems in Kingston hospital, and indeed in hospitals throughout the country, still be operational?
In response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Minister said that the Prime Minister's figure of £3 billion was the Government's best guess. That does not reassure anyone that the Government have a firm grasp of the problem. Can we have a more detailed breakdown of that best-guess figure? Given that national health service trusts were asked to submit their fully costed plans for tackling the millennium bug by the end of March, can the Minister now tell us the total cost of the bug to the NHS?
Given that the Chancellor said that there would be no extra funds to tackle the problem, what impact will there be on waiting lists? Does the Minister accept that widening the remit to cover the wider public sector will be a Canute-like gesture unless it is accompanied by new resources and a new sense of urgency?

Dr. Clark: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I invite him to help me in the task of trying to ensure that


his local health authority and trust, and indeed his local authority, can sensibly analyse the position and draw up and publish plans. I happen to believe that right hon. and hon. Members have a responsibility to persuade bodies in their constituencies that are not directly answerable to the House to follow what I regard as a sensible and open approach.
The hon. Gentleman chastised me for having no figures for the national health service. The figures are vague and difficult to collect. The National Audit Office undertook an audit, and—I am speaking from memory—estimated the cost to be more than £200 million to £250 million. I think that it is on the low side, but it was the NAO's best estimate when it published its report about three weeks ago.

Maria Eagle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's activity on this problem over the past year, and especially his willingness to make quarterly reports. The National Audit Office report makes it clear that Departments and agencies have plans of varying quality, some of which—one hopes that these are from the smaller agencies—amount to no more than one-page letters about what they have done so far. What activity is his Department undertaking to chase up those agencies and Departments with poor-quality plans, and ensure that they will be able to deal with the problem in plenty of time?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend quite rightly draws to our attention the great disparity of preparedness, especially within NHS trusts. The National Audit Office report says:
one fifth of the NHS Trusts and Health Authorities thought they would need right up to the end of 1999 to ensure that all their IT systems were year 2000 compliant and 10 per cent of NHS Trusts were not confident that they would achieve this.
Frankly, that is not good enough, and I have written to the Secretary of State for Health, who is, of course, in touch with the chief executive of the national health service, to point out that that is not good enough.
We have to ensure that the message on best practice, which the national health service executive is keen to expound, is got across to those trusts which do not appear at this stage to have taken on board the seriousness of that message. Therefore, we are putting as much pressure as we can on the NHS to try to ensure that those trusts that we and others have identified do better.

Mr. David Davis: May I start by welcoming the Minister's statement that his remit is being widened? It seems necessary from the report that he quotes. The Comptroller and Auditor General, if I can summarise the thrust of that report, says that, broadly speaking, centralised Departments such as the Department of Social Security are doing well. Decentralised departments such as the NHS give much more cause for concern.
The Minister quoted a figure from the report on the cost that the NHS has cited. The report also says that that cost looks very low compared with that of other sectors. He cites the likelihood of hitting the target. I think that the report says that nearly one in six health authorities are unsure whether all their clinical equipment will be up to speed by 2000.
My concern is that, given that the aim is to meet the requirements out of the existing budgets of the NHS and of other decentralised departments, and given, as the Minister says, that the costs of meeting this problem will escalate geometrically as 2000 comes closer, we do not have the makings of a financial time-bomb. I should like to hear him tell the House how he will intervene to prevent both costs and risk to the public escalating as we approach 2000.

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman approaches this in what I accept is a commendable manner. He accepts that there is a problem, and I hope that he will try to help us to deal with it; his questions certainly suggest he will.
In addition to having the National Audit Office report, soon we should have a report from the Audit Commission, which will allow us to make a better assessment of the picture in the NHS and in the other delegated authorities. Plainly, we have a better picture of the central Government Departments, because we have been working with them for almost 12 months now, whereas we have just brought the other public sector authorities within our scope.
Because of the various structures that we were not responsible for setting in place, such as delegated authorities, we do not have the hands-on authority that we may have had in days past, so it is a question of persuading trusts and authorities that they must meet the deadlines. Indeed, I will be asking the relevant Secretaries of State to get the message across to the respective bodies that they must start to take these issues seriously.
On costs, the Audit Commission suggested that the costs of the NHS would be between £200 million and £850 million, although the estimate from the NHS trusts is at the lower end. I agree with the NAO that that is very much on the low side.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Under Mackinlay's law, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his work on this?
May I ask for clarification? First, on the current situation with regard to Cabinet Ministers, will the actual state of each Department be put in the public domain? Secondly, I understand from all the research I have seen that it would be very unwise for any country to go into a single currency and cope with the millennium bug in one year. I wonder whether he might pose that question when he goes to Vienna, and bring back an answer.
Thirdly, is there any value in having a practice day for the millennium bug? It is dangerous to go to one date and hope that the systems are going to work. Is there a way that we could try systems in 10 per cent. of Government agencies and 10 per cent. of other agencies on a particular day in October or November this year, which is possible? It would be much better to do that than to try them all on 31 December 1999.
My final worry is that the top 60 Microsoft products, including Windows 95, are not millennium-compliant.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable about these matters. I can confirm that the detailed plans and the complete responses from Cabinet Ministers will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the internet. They add up now to more than 2,000 pages.
As for the Vienna issue, we have examined millennium compliance and the euro. Ever since the Maastricht treaty was signed in 1992, the countries that intend to sign up to the euro have been aware of the dual problem involved.
I do not know enough about a specific testing period; I will certainly look into it. To give my hon. Friend some idea of progress so far, we believe that about 30 per cent. of systems have been completed and about 25 per cent. have been tested. The Cabinet Sub-Committee has recommended that, once internal testing has been done, we should do random testing with outside experts to double-check the facilities.
I was not aware of my hon. Friend's point about Windows 95 and the other Microsoft pieces of equipment—but I fully understand it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Chancellor was generous about my efforts, and we certainly share his desire to ensure that the public are protected from a failure of systems at the millennium. Some simple things can go wrong and cause havoc. For instance, I was born in 1945; will his systems show me as being 55 in 2000, or minus 45, or not born at all? The difference is important, not just to me but to the records that the Minister is keeping.
Is the Chancellor following best private sector practice—for example, when it comes to risk assessment? Such risk assessment has led private sector companies to prioritise already. That is, of course, a good deal more sensitive in the public sector, because it implies that some functions may not continue through the millennium. Is the Minister copying the auditors in the private sector? From this year, some large companies' accounts will be qualified—a practice which could be applied to the NHS trusts.
What concerns me about costs is that a failure to provide a ballpark figure would imply that no proper audit of the problem has been carried out by some of the decentralised public services. That is not a great criticism of the Chancellor, but it is very worrying if we do not yet have a grip of the size of the problem.
Inevitably, at some point, Government Departments will refuse to deal with private sector companies that cannot guarantee that they are compliant. In the private sector, cut-off dates are beginning this year, not in 1999. Will the public sector start refusing to deal with private sector companies in this position—on 31 December 1998 or thereabouts?

Dr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent points. I sincerely meant the tribute that I paid to his work.
I hope that I have already made it clear that we are trying to work with the private sector. We accept that it is often way ahead of the public sector, and we have a great deal to learn—we are still learning—from its experiences. Some of those advising us are prominent private sector figures.
The first lesson that we have learnt is that prioritising is critical—we have made that quite clear to all central Government Departments. The second lesson is the issue of testing and having external testing, just as, in a financial context, one has external auditors to check one's own internal auditors.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman's point about the NHS, on 15 May, we sent round a circular to the NHS making it clear to the trusts and to the NHS authorities that they

are responsible for getting this right. We made it clear that the ultimate responsibility for millennium compliance within a trust rests with the chief executive of that trust—that is spelled out in words of one syllable.
We understand the hon. Gentleman's third point about the wider public sector, and I accept that he was not making a cheap political point. There are problems: having devolved power to try to enable increased efficiency, one is left without the hands-on authority. I think that we have got the message of awareness and necessity across to central Government; we have not managed to do so with the same success in the wider public sector, but we intend to do so.
The hon. Gentleman's final point related to testing equipment that we are buying in, and I have installed a testing and checking regime. Although, since September last year, we have said that every piece of equipment that central Government buy in ought to be millennium-compliant, I am insisting that there is random, routine testing of the equipment to ensure that compliance standards are met. I am working in the hope that, as the market for equipment in central Government is so large, no supplier would be so foolish as to supply us with equipment that was not millennium-compliant, because we are carrying out checks.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is welcome that the Government are bringing forward plans to catch up with the neglect left behind by the previous Government, it is an outrage that so many information technology suppliers are still selling goods and products that are not millennium-compliant? Have the Government any plans to take legal action to recover some of the costs incurred by the public sector as a result of duff and defective products being sold by such companies?

Dr. Clark: As I said, I have now installed a new regime whereby there is random testing of equipment supplied. The answer to my hon. Friend is that, if we find equipment that is not up to scratch, we simply send it back, and think very hard before offering a contract to that supplier again.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Chancellor said that his latest estimate of the cost to Government Departments of dealing with the millennium date change was £402 million, and that he was confident that that could be met out of information technology budgets, rather than, as he put it, out of operating costs. He then went on to a guesstimate, saying that he thought that the problem would cost up to £3 billion in the wider public arena.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular the NHS, in which the problem would cost somewhere between £250 million and £800 million, but is he satisfied that it will be possible to meet that sum, without—in respect of the NHS, I use the term "operating costs" literally—the quality of services provided being affected? If he cannot answer that now, can he give any indication as to when the other Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—will be able to say whether Government money will be forthcoming to deal with the problem, or whether the cost will have to come out of overall budgets?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. The truth is that nobody really knows—nobody knows


how much it will cost either the private sector or the public sector. Those figures are only guesstimates, but each Department has made its own guesstimate, is aware of the costs and has budgeted accordingly. Let me make the general point that the replacement of IT equipment is in a very short cycle; in the past three years, the amount of routine replacement with millennium-compliant equipment has meant that the cost might not be quite as great as we thought it would be. The guess of £3 billion is the best guess that anyone has made.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the duplication of effort, especially within the health service, with different trusts all trying to solve the same problem? I am frustrated to see Conservative Members nodding their heads in response to this, because I believe that their changes to the national health service created the divisions that have led to lots of people having to do the same job. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that separate health trusts do not have to duplicate one another's work by instructing the Medical Devices Agency to provide a list of millennium-compliant equipment so that trusts can have a single source of reliable information about what is compliant?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend asks pertinent questions. I assure her that that issue has been considered, but NHS trusts have many aspects. For example, the information management group of the NHS executive gives advice and guidance on information technology issues; the Medical Supplies Agency performs a similar task on supply issues; the estates agency provides specialist advice and consultancy on estate matters, including equipment; and the Medical Devices Agency, to which my hon. Friend referred, is responsible for ensuring that all the necessary steps are taken and that individual trusts are aware of those steps. We are considering ways of ensuring that the advice given by different groups within the NHS is co-ordinated. I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of the NHS executive.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: About two months ago, during Scottish questions, I was given an unconditional assurance by the Scottish Office that the emergency services in Scotland would be millennium-compliant. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy give that assurance for emergency services in England, or was his Scottish colleague being somewhat heroic?

Dr. Clark: The Scottish Office has a slight advantage, in that its old mainframe computer was replaced in March, which means that the problems in Scotland are considerably eased compared with those in England. However, the Cabinet Committee is trying to ensure that the provision of health and emergency cover is dealt with.
That is not simply a public sector issue, because the provision of emergency services requires, for example, that telephone exchanges are working. That is what I meant earlier when I referred to an interrelationship between the private and public sectors. We all depend on

one another, and we are working to try to ensure that contingency plans are in place at a national level so that there will be no serious problems in 2000.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Still on the subject of Scotland, does the Minister think that on Hogmanay 1999, any of us will be in a fit state to do anything, let alone cope with the millennium bug? Is there not some merit in the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sherry—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Sherry?"]—Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt)? That is what will happen on Hogmanay 1999. My hon. Friend suggested that there should at least be a dummy run on a Saturday and Sunday.
Will the Minister also consider the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), which was also asked by those of us present during the proceedings on the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), when the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) was a Minister? My hon. Friend asked how developing countries should be helped with their problems, because, apart from anything else, chaos in their ordering and trading systems will hit us.

Dr. Clark: On my hon. Friend's latter point—it was remiss of me not to deal with this earlier, for which I apologise to him—it is important that we recommend best practice and provide help to other countries. The interrelationship that exists, as I pointed out, between the public and private sectors in this country applies equally across international boundaries. We are considering what assistance we can provide to third-world countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken every opportunity at every international conference since March to raise the issue of the millennium bug.
On my hon. Friend's other point, I was tempted to say that at least one person in Scotland should be in a fit state on Hogmanay 1999, but, in light of my hon. Friend's reference to a constituency in "Sherry", I am not sure whether that will be the case. I have said that we shall consider whether it is feasible to conduct contingency testing. I do not rule it out, but I shall seek expert advice on that point.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the popular belief—which has been strengthened somewhat this afternoon—that, by new year's day 2000, we may have witnessed the complete disintegration of the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and possibly his entire party?

Dr. Clark: That is a little unkind. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is extremely consistent: he rubbishes this Government in exactly the same way as he rubbished the previous Government.

Mr. Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the anxieties being expressed that there are not enough skilled people to do the work that must be done between now and the millennium. I welcome his reassurances this afternoon about the position in central Government Departments, but what is his assessment of the position on skills shortages in the wider public sector?


Is there any evidence of a shortage of the skilled staff who are required in sufficient numbers to do the work that is outstanding?

Dr. Clark: I can go only on what Departments and public sector bodies tell me. With the exception of the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and several smaller agencies, they tell me that they do not envisage any particular shortage. However, I am advised by people in the private sector that, as we move towards testing time—particularly next year—there could be a shortage. We want to ensure that that does not happen, so we are trying to train 20,000 "bug busters" under the initiative outlined in the Budget.

Eritrea

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
The dispute over border delimitation and demarcation arose when Ethiopian and Eritrean armed forces clashed on the Badame plateau on 12 May. Ethiopia accused Eritrea of invading its territory and Eritrea defended its actions by claiming that it was responding to an Ethiopian violation on 6 May. There have since been further clashes in border regions over disputed territory.
On 15 May, I issued a statement on behalf of the European Union expressing our concern about the clashes, urging restraint and calling for the resolution of the dispute by peaceful means. At that time, a facilitation team led by Susan Rice, the United States Assistant Secretary of State, and including Vice-President Kagame of Rwanda, commenced a round of shuttle diplomacy in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. We have fully supported those efforts and continue to do so in both our presidency statements and personal contacts with both leaders by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The team's initial recommendations included an Eritrean withdrawal from Badame and the restoration of the status quo of 6 May, the demilitarisation of the whole border area, the delimitation/demarcation of the boundary, and deployment of observers. We understand that, while both sides showed a willingness to accept the broad principles of the recommendations, they could not agree on several points of detail—particularly on the Eritrean side. We monitored closely developments throughout the negotiation period and, by 2 June, it became apparent that the facilitators had been unable to bridge the gap of disagreement between the two sides.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took the decision to intervene in order to reinforce the European Union's position that the dispute should be settled by peaceful means and to underline our support for the work of the facilitators. On 3 June, my right hon. Friend spoke personally to Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia and sent a written message to President Issaias of Eritrea. He told both leaders that the United Kingdom and the European Union were saddened by this dispute between two friendly nations. He stressed that the outbreak of war would damage the interests of both sides and, in particular, would endanger regional stability and development. My right hon. Friend assured both leaders that the EU supported the efforts of all parties that genuinely wished to see the dispute settled peacefully.
Sadly, as hon. Members will know from media coverage, the two sides escalated the level of military engagement. On 5 June, the Ethiopians flew two bombing sorties over Asmara airport in Eritrea and the Eritreans twice launched air attacks on Mekelle in the Tigray province of Ethiopia. The Ethiopians responded with a further bombing raid on Asmara airport on the morning of 6 June. I regret to report to the House that the raids caused civilian casualties and deaths on both sides of the border. We deplore this needless loss of life and have reiterated our appeal to both sides to seek a negotiated settlement.
In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation, which, because of the geography, threatened to trap foreign nationals in a situation of war in Eritrea—the same geographical problem does not apply to Ethiopia—officials urgently considered the need to evacuate British nationals in Eritrea. At that point, it was clearly very dangerous to risk flying in and out of Asmara airport without guarantees of safety from both sides. Our ambassador in Addis Ababa initiated a joint United Kingdom-United States-German-Italian effort to secure such agreements. Accordingly, an RAF Hercules set off from RAF Lyneham in the early hours of Saturday morning to evacuate British nationals who wished to leave and who had been unable to be accommodated on a US civilian evacuation flight to Frankfurt the previous day. The US flight had accepted 48 British nationals, mostly voluntary service personnel. We are most grateful to the United States Government for their help.
The Germans, Italians, Americans and the United Kingdom sent in military evacuation flights on Saturday evening. Our aircraft was able to evacuate a large number of Commonwealth and EU citizens and one American, as well as British citizens, to Jedda in Saudi Arabia. One of the two American flights that day took 21 Britons to Amman in Jordan. The majority of British nationals have now arrived back in the United Kingdom. Our consulates in Frankfurt, Jedda and Amman have assisted with onward journeys. I take this opportunity to pay special tribute to those closely involved in the evacuation exercise, including the crew of the RAF Hercules and our honorary consul in Asmara, Stephen Burges. He was appointed only recently and works in an unpaid capacity—he literally experienced a baptism of fire.
Although accurate and up-to-date information is now hard to obtain, we understand that the temporary cessation of hostilities negotiated to assure the safe passage of the evacuation flights has, by and large, held. I repeat our urgent call to both parties to maintain the cessation of hostilities and to agree a formal ceasefire. If they do that, I believe that the way will be open for the facilitators to resume their work. The gap between the two sides is small and can surely be bridged. They do not dispute the border line itself: it is a matter of demarcation and delimitation. It is in the interests of both countries, which for 17 years fought together the terrible tyranny of the Derg regime, to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute. The stability and development of both countries is otherwise at risk.
We are now considering with the US and our EU partners how best we may be able to assist in the process of securing a lasting and peaceful settlement of the dispute. We believe that that can be achieved by giving our unequivocal support to the efforts of the facilitators. If we can provide material help that also supports those efforts, we shall do so. I assure the House that we shall continue to do all that we can to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Mr. Michael Trend: I thank the Minister for his statement and join him in commending the work of the Royal Air Force and members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in evacuating British citizens from Eritrea. Like the Minister, I thank the honorary consul, Mr. Stephen Burges, who took up his post only on Monday. He has played an important role in evacuating

civilians from that country. It demonstrates once again the value and commitment of honorary consuls, and the Opposition are grateful for their work in assisting British citizens throughout the world.
The Minister has confirmed that all British citizens who wish to leave the country have now done so. Will he tell the House what arrangements have been made to ensure that others who may wish to leave hereafter have the opportunity to do so? On a more general but very important point, can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that the United Kingdom will be able to participate in similar future evacuations should the need arise after the findings of the strategic defence review are made known and implemented?
The Minister will be aware that Britain has a particular relationship with the region, following the liberation of Eritrea in 1941 and our administration of the country for more than a decade. In view of the growing hostility between the two countries, is it right for the ambassador to Eritrea to be resident in Ethiopia? Has the Minister plans to review our diplomatic presence?
I have questions on two further specific points. First, the Minister refers to the Government being prepared to provide "material help" for the efforts of those seeking to facilitate a peaceful settlement. The Minister could have in mind, for example, arranging an international conference or providing direct military assistance. Will he be more specific about what he means by "material help"? Secondly, can the Minister shed light on what arms and other munitions may be getting through to Eritrea and Ethiopia at present?
Finally, the Minister will be aware that the dispute is not the only one in Africa that could destabilise the continent. What steps is the United Kingdom taking to ensure that other territorial disputes do not escalate into military confrontations such as the one in Eritrea and Ethiopia? For example, what does the Minister plan to do about the stand-off between two Commonwealth countries, Botswana and Namibia? What is being done to support the idea of creating an African-based and controlled peacekeeping force, which could be deployed in areas of tension—such as the border of Eritrea—while diplomatic solutions are sought?

Mr. Lloyd: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post, I thank him for his gracious remarks about those who took part in the evacuation operation, especially the honorary consul, whom I mentioned. He rightly draws attention to the valuable role that is played by not only honorary consuls, but the diplomatic community globally. At times like this, we all realise that they play an especially important role.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the British citizens remaining in Eritrea. We believe that they number about 20. In the run-up to the eventual evacuation, we gave consistent advice that British citizens should consider the position in Eritrea, and obviously, one of the reasons for the evacuation was premised by the fact that civilian flights ceased to operate, I believe, on Thursday 4 June. In that context, the decision to send in an RAF plane for evacuation purposes was, of itself, a significant signal that we could not henceforth give guarantees about the safety of British nationals in that situation. We shall consider every practical step that is possible to offer assistance to British citizens in the light of what I have said, but I repeat


that the citizens who chose to remain did so—I believe—knowingly, on the basis that further evacuation may not be an option.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of such evacuations continuing in future, after the strategic defence review. He, like the whole House, must await the outcome of the publication of that review, as is right and proper.
The hon. Gentleman asked me especially about our diplomatic relationship, specifically in terms of the ambassador in Addis Ababa also being accredited to Eritrea. That situation was based on the fact that, since 1991, the two countries—this is the sad irony of the present conflict—had relations as close as it was possible to imagine between two neighbours, because they had the same background and had been through the same conflict. In those terms, the situation that confronts us is very new. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that, although I do not want to fail to answer his question, it is premature for us to examine how best we continue with our relations, especially with Eritrea.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what support the European Union would consider giving. So far, the primary role has been played by the United States and by the Rwandans; we applaud the role that they have played. Undoubtedly, they played a significant role in trying to prevent the conflict; they are still working hard to prevent it from continuing. We do not want to cut across anything that they do.
At the moment, therefore, the facilities that I spoke of in my statement would mainly be confined—although we would not rule out anything else that might be helpful—to technical expertise, such as the provision of technical experts to take part in the process of delimiting the border between the two countries. That is a practical role, which we may be able to play, and which we would want to play.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about conflict prevention throughout Africa. He may be aware that the British Government, with the United States and France, have been actively engaged at the United Nations, and in co-ordination with the Organisation of African Unity, in proposals to establish an African peacekeeping presence. That would consist of building a capacity between African nations, so that they can play the role that they should be playing, whereby a regional presence moves into such peacekeeping activity and can play a constructive role. We are actively engaged in that agenda; that agenda will pay dividends in future.

Mr. David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. First, will he give us an idea whether any assessment has been made of the longer-term solutions to the problems that have been highlighted in the past week or so? Secondly, will he give us an idea of the assessment that he has made of the impact on the important development issues in both countries? As he knows, both countries are among the poorest in the world, and have suffered from drought and famine as well as the long-term effects of war.

Mr. Lloyd: The immediate needs of both countries are an end to hostilities, an acceptance that the zone in dispute should be demilitarised, and a return to the status quo before 6 May, when the present round of conflict had its origins. Beyond that immediate agenda, there needs to be

agreement on a process for arbitration between the two parties. Both the United States and Rwandan facilitating team and the European Union will actively work toward that.
The second part of my hon. Friend's question is serious. Since the independence of Eritrea and since the overthrow of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, the two countries have worked closely together, in a partnership which, for the first time for a considerable while, has allowed the possibility of development. The real tragedy of this conflict is that all that is now cast in doubt. All that makes it much more difficult for would-be partners to help. It also makes it much more difficult, on the ground, for the practical progress that both countries should be making to occur. That, I regret, is the real foolishness and the real sadness of the present situation.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the Government on helping to negotiate the ceasefire that led to the effective evacuation of British citizens from Eritrea. Does he recall that, in 1985, there was a terrible famine in the Horn of Africa, which was due to a civil war, in which Ethiopia and Eritrea and their present Governments were on the same side? Since that famine in the Horn of Africa, arms and aid have flowed together to both Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Will the Minister tell the House what proper scrutiny there has been of arms going to Eritrea and Ethiopia since his Government took power? Is it not time to end the spiral of conflict that starts with arms to fuel wars, which cause the poverty, which affects the whole of the developing world?

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks about the role of the British ambassador in Addis Ababa in negotiating the ceasefire. It was an important role—one which, as it happens, not only brokered a ceasefire until 3 o'clock GMT on Sunday morning, which was the negotiated time frame, but, as far as we are aware, has led to a cessation of hostilities since. We hope that that cessation continues. A not insignificant role was played by the ambassador and his colleagues in Addis Ababa.
On the wider question of the supply of arms to both Ethiopia and Eritrea, I am rather cautious about giving the House information off the top of my head, for reasons that may be obvious. I am not aware that arms have gone from this country to Ethiopia or Eritrea in that time, although I shall seek to check those facts, to ensure, as ever, that this Government, unlike the previous Government, give accurate information to the House.
The real issue that the hon. Lady raises is the supply of arms to Africa and to other areas of potential conflict. The Government are working hard on that problem. For example, the Department for International Development recently provided the Government of Mali with significant sums, among other purposes for the possible buyback of arms that have gone into that area. The British Government sponsored a conference in the past few weeks in southern Africa, the aim of which was to examine the possibility of controlling the supply of illicit arms in that region. Those are issues on which the Government are engaged because we know that, in the end, conflict is based on the existence of armaments.


In the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the conflict is between two sovereign nations, which is rare nowadays. Few would deny the right of sovereign nations to engage in defence.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is there any possibility of a senior aide of Kofi Annan acting as a mediator between the two nations? Has this dreadful affair been raised at the Security Council? On the question of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) about the possibility of regionally based UN peacekeeping forces, how on earth can we expect the United Nations to develop such a fine idea, given that as an organisation it is so badly strapped for money, largely as a result of the stupid obduracy of Congressmen and women on Capitol hill?

Mr. Lloyd: I can tell the House that the matter certainly has been discussed at the Security Council. It should come before the Security Council again, with a view to the United Nations adopting a Security Council resolution. It is important that the UN's authority should be placed behind condemnation of the violence and the efforts of those who are trying to mediate.
Although the United Nations must be engaged at a general level, the view of the international community is that the present efforts of the United States, which speaks for itself, and of Rwanda, which is a country friendly to both parties and a neighbour, are particularly useful. We would not advocate any measure that cut across those efforts. It is important that too many people do not become involved as that would frustrate the mediation efforts.
On my hon. Friend's final question, we believe that the United Nations should be put on a proper financial footing, which means that all those who owe large sums should pay up.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role, which I hope he will enjoy.
I have three questions. First, how many Europeans, other than the British, are still left in Eritrea? Do we know that? Is not the airfield at Asmara both a civilian and a military airfield? One side is military and the other side is civilian, so an attack on the airfield is an attack on a civilian airfield as well as on a military base. If we can get some sort of solution, we should be prepared to ensure that the airfield can be restored for civilian use as quickly as possible.
Secondly, as a secondary effect of the conflict, are there attacks on Europeans? I believe that that is not the case, but it would be useful to have an assurance that, although Europeans may be caught up between the two sides, there are no direct attacks on Europeans.
Thirdly, does the Minister agree that in the efforts to bring about a solution, the leadership ought to be taken by the Organisation of African Unity, whose headquarters are in Addis Ababa? Such an organisation is most likely to be able to represent both sides in bringing about a solution.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the airport in Asmara is both military and civilian. As far as

we are aware, there have been no further attacks on the airport since before the British evacuation took place. We hope that that state of affairs continues.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any further information about the number of European nationals. We know that there are some 20 British nationals there, but we do not know how many other Europeans may be there. I can tell the House that on the RAF Hercules flight, there were 104 people, of whom the overwhelming majority were non-UK nationals. They were nationals of Commonwealth countries or of other European countries. We trust that we played a significant role in evacuating other European citizens, and I am sure that the House appreciates the work of the RAF and other authorities in that process.
I am not aware of any attack on European nationals. We have had no such reports, but obviously the quality of information is poor and it is not possible to give a guarantee that that is the case.
On the role of the Organisation of African Unity, the House will want to know that the OAU is in session at present. The Secretary-General, Salim Salim, has been in direct contact with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia and the President of Eritrea to put the force of the OAU behind the mediation role currently being played by the Americans and the Rwandans. That is the right way forward. It is important that in this almost inexplicable situation, there is no gap between organisations in the international community, and that all of us speak with the same voice and the same authority to deplore the violence and to demand that both sides get round the negotiating table.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To return to the question of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on arms, when I was on holiday in Iran in October, I got into a chance conversation with a Russian national in Hamadan who was clearly selling arms to Iran. When I commented that he was obviously doing good business, he said, "Yes, I am certainly doing good business, but it is not half as good as the business that we do in east Africa."
Is it not the case that Russian arms, dirt cheap and pretty sophisticated, are swilling around vast parts of the developing world? I do not know what my hon. Friends can do about it, but is that not part of the problem and should we not face the fact that cheap Russian arms and ammunition are creating a great deal of difficulty?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not just Russian arms that find their way into potential conflict zones. Sadly, the world is awash with small arms. The majority of deaths and injuries worldwide are caused by small arms systems, not by the great armament systems that we tend to read about.
As I told the House earlier, the British Government are engaged on practical ways of dealing with the problem. I do not pretend that there is an easy, immediate solution. We are examining the possibility of empowering regional groupings. Southern Africa is an example of a region that has known enormous conflict in recent times and where, even now, huge amounts of arms are swilling around. If we can learn the lessons from that region, they apply in other parts of the world. At the international level,


with other partners who share our concern, we are examining other ways of dealing with that extremely difficult problem.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Am I correct in understanding that the Minister is saying that the Ethiopians initiated this latest round of violence? Do the Government believe that there is any justification for this behaviour? Is it possible for the international community, especially the United Kingdom and the European Union, to draw a distinction between the behaviour of the two nations that are involved in the violence?

Mr. Lloyd: I did not say that the Ethiopians are the authors of this particular round of violence. In these situations, it is probably foolhardy to try to allocate responsibility. At this stage, we should be saying to both sides that the cycle of violence begetting violence is not the way forward. We need a clear break from hostility, demilitarisation of the conflict zone and a return to the status quo that existed before 6 May, and then to get round the negotiating table to begin the difficult process of drawing up commonly agreed boundaries. Such a process, however difficult, is much less painful than the cycle of violence that simply kills.

Maria Eagle: Given that there are other on-going conflicts in the area—one thinks of Sudan and Somalia—what implications does my hon. Friend believe the new conflict has for the region? Is this conflict likely to change the balance of power and the balance of other conflicts in the region and affect the stability of the whole of east Africa?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We know that in neighbouring Sudan there has been a civil war for a generation—indeed, effectively since independence. We know also that in Somalia the state of governance is almost no governance. A conflict between what in recent times have been the more stable countries in the region is a tragedy for the two countries involved and is potentially destabilising within the region. That is partly why there need to be intense efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table.
This extra or latest conflict could, of course, spill over to neighbouring countries, and the process of destabilisation could occur on a much wider scale. Sadly, that destabilisation would feed back into the conflict. There is much for us to agree on in our demand that mediation must be the right answer.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your clarification. It has been drawn to my attention by friends of mine in the tobacco industry that there is a meeting tomorrow morning in the Jubilee Room. It is a so-called press briefing entitled, "A call for a more effective UK public policy on smoking cessation and the use of nicotine replacement therapy", sponsored by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I understand that the promoters are being assisted by a commercial company whose public relations firm was responsible for sending out the invitations to this so-called press briefing.
Is it right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the facilities of the House should be used for a meeting purporting to address a matter of public policy when it is, in fact, masquerading as such on behalf of commercial companies that wish to supplant tobacco and replace it with an alternative?

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is an eminent cancer scientist. Surely it is right and proper that he should hold a meeting in the House with bodies working in that sector and invite hon. Members who, like me, have an interest in his work in the fight against cancer.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House. I can assure the House that I would not have any truck with tobacco companies. Indeed, I have fought them for many years. I am told reliably by the two professors who have produced the report that will be presented tomorrow that they are independent of any tobacco companies. Their report will play a major part in the production of the White Paper on tobacco smoking and the protection of young people—indeed, all people—from hazards to the health of the people of our nation.

Mr. Howarth: I do not wish to detain the House much longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point is that commercial companies are offering nicotine replacement therapy and it is their public relations company that is behind the organisation of the meeting. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Norwich, North taking part in it. My objection is to the fact that a meeting purporting to address a matter of public policy is in fact being promoted by commercial companies, undeclared.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have no doubt that the appropriate authority will have noted the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and will, if necessary, look into the matter for him.

TEACHING AND HIGHER EDUCATION BILL [LORDS] PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [4th June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [4 June]:
That—
(a) Proceedings on consideration of the Bill shall be taken in the following order, namely, Amendments to Clauses 12 to 21, Amendments to Schedule 2, New Clauses 5, 6 and 8, Amendments to subsection (1) of Clause 22 relating to treatment of students resident in different parts of the United Kingdom, remaining Amendments to Clause 22 and Amendments to Clauses 23 to 28 and remaining New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Part II, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 11, Amendments to Schedule 1, Remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, remaining Amendments, and
(b) the two days allotted under the Order (19th May) to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) on the expiry of the allotted period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on that day) specified in the third column of the Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Allotted period


First day
Amendments to Clauses 12 to 21 and Schedule 2
1 hour



New Clauses 5, 6 and 8
1½ hours



Amendments to subsection (1) of Clause 22 relating to treatment of students resident in different parts of the United Kingdom
3½ hours



Remaining Amendments to Clause 22, Amendments to Clauses 23 to 28 and remaining new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part II
6 hours


Second day
Amendments to Clauses 1 to 11 and Schedule 1, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules and remaining Amendments
2 hours



Third Reading
3 hours

Orders of the Day — Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 12

DEDUCTION OF FEES FROM SALARIES, ETC.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 8, leave out lines 14 to 18.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 85, 96, 97, 14 to 33 and 99.

Mr. Byers: I extend a warm welcome to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May); I hope that they will occupy their shadow positions for many years to come.
The amendments relate to the procedures that are necessary to bar teachers from entering the teaching profession. Tomorrow, we shall have the opportunity—in line with the recommendations of the Business Committee—to discuss in some detail the powers and responsibilities of the General Teaching Council. The amendments before us today enable us to consider what responsibilities the GTC should have, and reflect the Government's disagreement with the recommendations coming from the other place and our view that child protection matters should remain to be considered by the Secretary of State. We feel it appropriate for the GTC to have powers over the conduct of teachers and on the question of teachers' competence or otherwise—

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Before my hon. Friend gets into his stride, I wish to intervene on a general issue involving the General Teaching Council. I know that my hon. Friend has been actively considering education jobs moving to York now that the Funding Agency for Schools is moving away. May I say publicly what I have said privately to my hon. Friend, which is that I believe that the GTC would be an appropriate body to be sited in York, partly because of its size and partly because in my view it needs to be away from the mainstream of the Department for Education and Employment to illustrate its independence and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak at such length, he should wait and make his speech later.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the Funding Agency for Schools and for retaining employment in York. I regret that our decision did not go in favour of basing the new framework department in York. Instead, we decided that it should be placed in Darlington. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the potential for the GTC to be sited in York. No


doubt there is a strong case that can be made on behalf of York—and no doubt my hon. Friend will make it. Decisions about the location of the GTC will be made over the next few months. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take into account the strong representations which he has already made and which he will no doubt make over the months ahead.
The amendments deal with the role that the Secretary of State should continue to have in the barring of teachers from the profession. A number of commitments were given in Committee, and the amendments reflect several points that were made from the Government Benches and by the Opposition, who raised a number of concerns about the detail of the implementation of procedures for the barring of teachers. The amendments reflect the positive contributions made by all members of the Committee.
For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall briefly outline the existing provisions for the barring of teachers from the profession. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to bar any individual from employment by a local education authority in a school. It is not restricted to teachers, but applies to classroom assistants, caretakers and youth workers—anyone with involvement in a school and contact with children attending it.
In discharging those responsibilities, the Secretary of State must put the interests of children first, especially in child protection matters. That is why there is provision that anyone convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under 16 will automatically be barred from the teaching profession. All hon. Members would agree that that is wholly appropriate, but in cases that fall short of a criminal conviction, there is discretion about whether an individual should be barred as a teacher or from carrying out any capacity or responsibilities in a school.
That discretion is currently exercised by the Secretary of State. The House of Lords, however, proposed that the power to bar for child protection reasons should be taken from the Secretary of State and handed over to the General Teaching Council. The Government have grave concerns and reservations about handing over such an important responsibility to the untried and untested General Teaching Council, which is why I shall invite hon. Members to reject the proposals from another place and agree to the amendments, under which child protection matters would remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
In dealing with those matters, the Secretary of State considers representations made on behalf of individuals, who can submit written representations, testimonials, character references and, where necessary, medical and other reports. The aim of the Secretary of State, and of Ministers who have responsibility for deciding such cases, is to achieve an overall picture of the conduct of the individual. In arriving at a decision, we do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the normal test in a criminal case. We believe that, even though evidence may fall short of that, there will be situations in which an individual should be barred from a school and from working in it if the interests of children are to be put first. Ministerial decisions are made on that basis, and there is no right to appeal. An individual may apply for judicial review, however, if he believes that the Secretary of State has exercised his responsibility in a way which should be challenged.
In exercising those responsibilities, we have always put the interests of children first. Many hon. Members and parents will be concerned at the scale of the problem and the number of times annually that the Secretary of State has to consider whether an individual should be barred from taking part in classroom activities. In the 12 months to 31 March 1997, the Department dealt with no fewer than 458 misconduct cases: in 125, individuals were barred from a school and from taking part in activities, and 12 individuals had employment restrictions imposed on them. That clearly shows that we are not considering only isolated cases. Unfortunately, hundreds of cases a year—the majority concerning misconduct in relation to child protection matters—have to be dealt with by the Secretary of State.
We believe that it is right and proper that that responsibility should remain with the Secretary of State. The Department maintains a list of people who are barred or restricted from teaching and from being involved in school-based activities, which we refer to as "List 99". Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that more than 2,100 people are on it at present. The majority have been barred from teaching or from classroom activities for child protection reasons, so the scale of the problem is considerable. The Government will not ignore it. Copies of "List 99" are issued to local education authorities, to further education college corporations and to other organisations representing employers in the education service. We are all responsible for ensuring that individuals on "List 99" are not involved in school-based activities.
The Government have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the net. There are concerns, which were expressed in Committee, that a number of lists compiled for child protection purposes operate in various Departments. The Department for Education and Employment has "List 99", and separate lists operate in the Department of Health and the Home Office. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), announced last Thursday that we are to establish an interdepartmental group of officials to consider the additional safeguards that are necessary to prevent unsuitable people from working with children.
The aim is to have a co-ordinated approach to ensure that we can establish a central register, which will be backed up by a new criminal offence, to prevent those on any register applying for work with children. I hope that the initiative will be welcomed by hon. Members.

Mr. Phil Willis: Private schools, institutions and nurseries, where it is far more difficult to get control, were mentioned in Committee, but have not been addressed in the Bill. Can the Minister assure hon. Members that he will consider those organisations carefully, to ensure that we can offer the same protection to children in that sector as we do to children in the state sector?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Individuals on "List 99" are also barred from teaching in independent schools. I am happy to give notice that if we discover an independent school employing an individual on "List 99", we shall take steps, not only in relation to the individual, but in relation to the school.
We have powers to serve a notice of complaint and to strike a school off the register of independent schools, and we have certainly exercised them since I have had responsibility for the matter. We have moved against individual independent schools that have not regarded child protection matters as being as important as they are and struck them off the register, which means that they can no longer act as independent schools. We shall exercise that power in any situation where we think that the interests of children are not being put first. That applies to the independent sector as well as to the maintained sector, for which we have responsibility as well.
5.30 pm
Although it is important that the General Teaching Council should be a single unified voice for the profession, it is the Government's view that it should not have responsibility for child protection matters. The House of Lords took a different view, but we believe that the public have a right to expect a coherent and rigorous system for barring people who are unsuitable to enter schools. It would have been wrong, misguided and dangerous to adopt the proposals from another place, which would have fragmented the child protection system by passing those responsibilities to the General Teaching Council.
The General Teaching Council should have a more clearly defined role as regards regulation of the profession, however. Schedule 2 provides for the council to determine those cases that involve unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence, but reserves child protection matters for determination by the Secretary of State. More than half the cases that come before the Department concern child protection matters; they will remain the Department's responsibility. Many of the other cases have little or no child protection dimension and those will become the responsibility of the General Teaching Council. In a small number of cases where it may be difficult to define the classification, it will be for the Secretary of State to determine whether the issue involves matters of child protection: if it does, it will continue to be reserved to the Secretary of State.
We shall place on employers a requirement to report to the General Teaching Council when they have dismissed someone on the ground of misconduct or incompetence, or when a person has resigned when he or she might have been so dismissed. Amendment No. 13 ensures that a teacher cannot tender his or her resignation in order not to be reported on the ground of incompetence or misconduct. That important safeguard closes a loophole that would otherwise exist.
A teacher must always be entitled to put his or her side of a case at a hearing to determine whether he or she should be barred from the profession. The Bill at present requires that teachers will have legal representation before any hearing of the General Teaching Council. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised that issue in Committee. He was concerned that the provision was overly restrictive in terms of a friend's accompanying a teacher. The Government agree with that view. It would be inappropriate to restrict the provision solely to legal

representation. Amendment No. 17 makes it clear that a teacher can be accompanied by anybody of his or her choice, rather than someone from a legal background alone. That will be bad news to many Members of this House who are in the legal profession, but it is right and appropriate in these circumstances to widen the classification of those who can accompany an individual teacher.
The General Teaching Council should be able to strike teachers off the register for serious professional incompetence as well as unacceptable professional conduct. That corresponds with the powers of most professional bodies, particularly the General Medical Council. Indeed, we have based many of the proposals before the House this evening on the GMC model.
We intend that the General Teaching Council will be entitled to act only when a teacher has been dismissed on the ground of incompetence or has resigned to avoid such dismissal. The council will then consider the case and decide whether the incompetence demonstrated is so serious that it should be taken forward with a view to striking the teacher concerned off the register or placing conditions on his or her practice as a teacher. However, the new powers that we are giving the General Teaching Council will in no way cut across the new capability procedures now being adopted by local authorities and school governing bodies throughout the country. It will be for individual governing bodies to judge a teacher's competence or otherwise, and it will be the responsibility and right of a governing body to dismiss the teacher.
Nothing in the powers that we intend to give the General Teaching Council will cut across that obligation and responsibility on a school governing body. We intend to ensure that, where that incompetence is so grave, the General Teaching Council should have the power to strike the teacher off the register so that he or she can teach in no other school.
Schedule 2 sets out the range of sanctions that will be open to the General Teaching Council. Again, they reflect the powers made available to other professional bodies. The sanctions will be graded to respond to misconduct or incompetence of differing levels of severity. Schedule 2 would allow the General Teaching Council to issue a reprimand to attach conditions to a teacher's registration, to suspend registration for up to two years, or to strike a teacher off the register—the ultimate sanction. Those powers will provide the General Teaching Council with a full and substantial role in regulating the teaching profession. I believe that that approach will be welcomed by teachers and the wider public.
People who are disciplined by the General Teaching Council should have a right of appeal, and the Government have been considering what arrangements should be put in place. We have now tabled amendment No. 28, which provides that individual teachers will be able to lodge an appeal with the High Court within 28 days of receiving notice of a disciplinary order. That reflects the arrangements that apply north of the border, where teachers may appeal to the Court of Session against a decision made by the General Teaching Council. I am advised that, since the GTC for Scotland was established in 1966, there have been only two appeals, so we envisage that the number of appeals will be small.
We seek to close a further loophole by means of amendments that have been tabled this evening. Teachers may commit offences abroad. Where those would have


been considered offences in the UK, we want to ensure that they can also be considered. As the law stands, it does not allow us to do so. Amendments Nos. 15, 23, 30 and 31 will achieve that objective and close what could be a significant loophole. When the General Teaching Council investigates and hears disciplinary cases, it will need to have the power to assess all the necessary and relevant documentation, to require witnesses to attend, to give evidence and to administer oaths. That is in keeping with the powers of other professional bodies, and we intend to give such powers to the General Teaching Council. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 do precisely that.
In addition, the General Teaching Council will have the power to impose conditional registration orders on teachers found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 make it clear that such an order might involve the teacher having to incur expenditure to comply with those requirements. For example, a teacher may need to undergo further training or be required to attend in-service training. In those circumstances, it is wholly appropriate for the individual to bear the costs.
This is an important area. By means of the amendments that we are tabling this evening, and by reversing the defeat that the Government suffered in the House of Lords, this House will put the interests of children first. Where child protection matters are concerned, we must be eternally vigilant. By providing the Secretary of State with a continuing role in child protection matters, we shall be able to guarantee our children the security that they deserve. The amendments will do that, and I commend them to the House. I hope that, although the House may divide on other issues this evening, this raft of the Government's proposals will command support from members of all parties.

Mrs. Theresa May: I thank the Minister for his kind words of welcome, but must say that, as a result of his well-known facility for figures, he has his numbers wrong again concerning the number of years that we Conservatives will be on the Opposition Benches.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate from the Front Bench. I suppose that many hope that, when making their first such speech, they will be able to set the political world on fire by making a speech to which reference is made in hushed tones for generations to come.

Mr. David Jamieson: Have a go, then.

Mrs. May: Were it my intention to make such a speech, Government amendment No. 84 would not have been my chosen starting point.
As the Minister made clear, the amendments raise several very important issues. I turn to the responsibility for child protection, and ensuring that those who are in charge of our children and young people in schools are entirely suitable. The Minister has set out why he believes it is important that the child protection regime should be maintained and that such powers should not go to the General Teaching Council. I fully appreciate that, given that the GTC is untried and untested, it would be risky to give it such powers and take them away from the Secretary of State.
The Minister spoke about putting the interests of children first, which, of course, is important. Given that responsibility for dismissing teachers on various grounds will be split between the GTC and the Secretary of State, we must ensure that arrangements work properly and fully and that there is no danger of any information or decisions falling between two stools. I note the interdepartmental group, although it is not clear whether it will consider ways of making certain that decisions on teachers will not fall between two stools, thus enabling teachers to continue teaching even though they are not suitable. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue to ensure that procedures are appropriate.

Mr. Byers: Rather than spending time dealing with that specific point in my winding-up speech, I shall deal with it now. Decisions on the matter will be reserved to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will determine whether the GTC has responsibility for a matter, although if it is one of child protection, the Secretary of State will determine it. With the Secretary of State as the central authority, making the decision on allocation, the difficulties to which the hon. Lady refers should be overcome.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which goes part way to resolving my concerns. I still wish to leave the issue on the table because there will always be suspicion when one body deals with instances concerning professional misconduct and health of teachers, and another deals with child protection issues. If the GTC is found to work well and is respected in the teaching profession, I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of child protection issues being under its remit. Would it be necessary to introduce further legislation to enable that or, if everybody agreed that it were appropriate, would it be possible simply to pass the responsibility over under existing powers?
In response to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Minister referred to the Secretary of State's responsibility in child protection matters for determining the suitability of teachers in independent schools. Will such responsibility also apply to people who look after children and young people in the out-of-school homework clubs that the Government are introducing? It is possible that all such people may not be members of the teaching profession. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the same rules, regulations and protection apply in such circumstances.
5.45 pm
Government amendment No. 13 would provide that information could be given to the Secretary of State or the GTC for England or for Wales in respect of dismissals for misconduct or incompetence, or on medical grounds, or where people resign in circumstances where
their employers would have dismissed them, or considered dismissing them, on any such grounds".
I am concerned about circumstances in which an allegation is made against a teacher, a governing body considers whether it is appropriate to continue to employ that teacher, and the teacher takes early retirement or resigns due to concern about the case, even though the case would have been dismissed as entirely unreasonable


and the teacher would have been exonerated. In such circumstances, a person might want to return to work. As I understand the amendment, information about the initial consideration would be on record but, because the case had not been heard properly, its result would not. Will the Minister respond to questions concerning justice and fairness in that regard?
I should like to raise a technical point about amendments Nos. 84 and 99; it concerns who can put their hands into teachers' pockets for GTC registration fees. I am sure that the Minister will say that he made it clear in Committee that the sums of money concerned are very small. I think that the sums quoted were £10 or £20. That may be so today, but a possible increase is not precluded.
I am concerned about the Government's definition of employer, especially in relation to a debate in Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill, with which the Minister will be familiar, about the relationship between local education authorities and education action zone forums. In an EAZ, teachers may, effectively, be employed by two bodies. Given the definition that the Minister is intending to insert into this Bill, it certainly seems to me that it is intended that the EAZ forum will also have the opportunity to be the body taking money out of teachers' pockets. I look to the Minister for confirmation. How will duplication be prevented when a teacher is employed by both bodies?
As the Minister has said, several of the amendments are technical. The Government are proposing important changes in disciplinary procedures concerning the GTC. We shall tomorrow have a wider debate on what it is appropriate for the GTC to do. I accept that, as the Minister said, the House will be wary of a body, which is not tried and tested, dealing with the very important issue of child protection. If the aim is that the GTC should develop into a body that maintains professional standards in teaching, it may be necessary to consider giving it child protection powers. I hope that the Government will at least keep their minds open on that possibility and not simply dismiss it out of hand.

Miss Anne Begg: I shall be brief, because there will be a wider debate on the powers of the General Teaching Council tomorrow. I may be unique in this House, in that I have served on a General Teaching Council. How can that be? I was an elected member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland—a post I had to give up, reluctantly, on my election to this place. In Scotland, the General Teaching Council—founded in 1966—works extremely well, although I must admit that a number of teachers in Scotland were against it at the time.
I welcome the strengthening of powers to enable the General Teaching Council for England and for Wales to be able to strike a teacher off. I served on the investigation committee of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which looked at any allegations to see if there was a case to answer. The committee had all the information in front of it, but took no evidence from the individual. The committee merely looked at whether there was a case to answer before passing it on to the disciplinary committee, the quasi-legal committee which took the case forward. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, only twice has the appeals mechanism to the Court of Session in Scotland been used in such cases.
It is right that the General Teaching Council should be able to strike teachers off. It sounds draconian, and it is something which one should not do lightly—that is the case in Scotland. Moves have been taken after a great deal of deliberation, but that has meant that there is confidence about the teaching profession in Scotland. The teachers themselves would not want any body other than the GTC to be taking those decisions.
I wish to refer to the issue of an appellant being accompanied by someone other than a lawyer. In Scotland, someone from the teacher's trade union will often accompany the teacher, and there is no reason why a friend cannot come along. That makes things much easier for any teacher who is going through what is, for them, a stressful situation.
I welcome the amendments, and tomorrow we will debate why it is so important to have the General Teaching Council for the good and well-being of the teaching profession in England and Wales.

Mr. Byers: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this useful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for sharing with hon. Members her personal experience of how a General Teaching Council works in practice. It is interesting to note that Scotland has had its General Teaching Council since 1966. If all goes well, we hope to establish one covering England and, probably, a separate one for Wales, by 2000. That is another example of where Scotland leads, England and Wales eventually follow.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised a number of detailed points about the way in which we intend to develop the General Teaching Council, and I shall try to deal with them all. She referred to the important issue of ensuring that there is an individual with clear responsibility 'for dealing with child protection matters, and ensuring that, under shared responsibility, no individual can somehow slip through the net.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead touched on a very important point—one which we have considered in some detail. We must ensure that the practical difficulties to which she referred do not apply to the Bill. That is why we have taken the view that the Secretary of State should determine whether the General Teaching Council or the Secretary of State should deal with the matters. The Secretary of State will not deal with a matter of conduct or competence, which will go to the General Teaching Council. The Secretary of State is likely to deal with purely child protection matters, and will take decisions in such cases.
The interdepartmental group—which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office announced last Thursday—is working across Departments, and not just within the Department for Education and Employment. The group recognises that, at the moment, a number of different Departments have responsibility for child protection matters and operate their own registers to bar people from working with children.
Our concern is that a register in, for example, the Department of Health is not accessible by the Department for Education and Employment. Schools or FE colleges may be unaware of an individual registered for barring purposes by the Department of Health. We want to establish a central register so that no one slips through the net in terms of child protection. The interdepartmental


group has been set up specifically to establish such a central register. That will go a long way toward ensuring that we do not have the loopholes which apply at present.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead asked whether the General Teaching Council might, in due course, take responsibility for child protection matters. As the Bill is at present worded, new primary legislation would be needed if the view was that the General Teaching Council should have responsibility for child protection matters. The matter would need to come back to the House. Some would say that that is disappointing, and that we should give more responsibility to the General Teaching Council.
In child protection matters, we should be cautious. I am prepared to see how the General Teaching Council develops over time. If the view is that it would be appropriate to give the responsibilities to the General Teaching Council, the matter should come back to this House for a decision.
To assist in the process, we intend to involve the General Teaching Council in child protection cases from its establishment. We would like the General Teaching Council to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on child protection issues so that it can be involved, consider matters and make recommendations. There is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will agree with the recommendations, but it is a way of involving the GTC.
Over time—when the GTC becomes tried and tested—we may well be able to hand over responsibility for child protection matters to the General Teaching Council. If so, it is only right and proper—in the Government's view—that the matter should come back to this House to be dealt with by fresh primary legislation.
In terms of out-of-school homework clubs and a range of activities out of traditional school hours—such as expanding summer schools or work before the normal school day starts—existing legislation and the Bill will cover those developments. The message is clear. There is no escape from proper scrutiny. The strict regime that we are proposing will apply to any activity that is school-based and involves children of school age—at no matter what time of day or night it takes place. That is right and proper.
The sort of individuals about whom we are concerned will use any opportunity which may be available to them. If they can see a chink in the armour, they will exploit any loophole. Protection will be there for any school-based activity at any time of the day, and at weekends.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to amendment No. 13 and expressed concern at the way in which it is worded, as it simply talks about an individual who resigns being considered for dismissal. There was no alternative to that wording. If someone wanted to escape disciplinary proceedings by resigning, the matter would obviously never be determined. Striking the right balance was difficult, but it will be for the General Teaching Council to consider whether, in the circumstances, a person would have been dismissed. We felt it appropriate that, rather than allow someone to exploit the device of resigning before the matter is determined, the matter should go to the General Teaching Council or to the Secretary of State. We believe that the inclusion in the Bill of the words "considered dismissing" represents the way forward.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that the Bill contains a wide definition of the employer. We want to cover all eventualities, as we are not sure how the school system will develop in the months and years ahead. Some of us have clear views on how it should develop—fingers crossed—but I am delighted that the definition in the Bill covers all eventualities.
The amendments are important. I make no apology for giving them 45 minutes of debate, as they raise important matters that will affect hundreds of children every year—we should put those children's interests first. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments so that we can move on to the next group.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS IMPOSED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 9, line 20, after 'incompetence', insert 'or on medical grounds,'.

No. 13, in page 9, line 21, leave out
'it is likely that they would have been so dismissed'
and insert
'their employers would have dismissed them, or considered dismissing them, on any such grounds'.

No. 85, in page 9, leave out lines 23 and 24.—[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 19

REQUIREMENT TO SERVE INDUCTION PERIOD

6 pm

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—
'(ca) precluding a relevant school, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, from being one at which an induction period may be served;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 87 to 93.
Amendment No. 119, in page 12, leave out lines 5 to 10.
Government amendments Nos. 94 and 95.

Mr. Byers: The amendments deal with the new induction arrangements for newly qualified teachers before they enter the teaching profession. Many hon. Members will be aware of the old system in which a teacher had to serve a probationary period. That approach fell into disrepute because the necessary investment was not made available; the previous Government removed the requirement for teachers to serve a probationary period because it was taken for granted that teachers would sail through it.
The Government take the view that an effective induction period should be put in place. The amendments would achieve three distinct objectives. First, they would enable the Government to ensure that no teachers serve an induction period in a school that is under special measures because it has been deemed to be failing. Secondly, they clarify the appeal arrangements that we intend to


introduce when teachers have not successfully completed their induction period. Thirdly, they fine-tune existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that the induction arrangements are consistent with best education and employment practice.
On the first of those aims, amendment No. 86 would enable the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that an induction period is not served in a school that is subject to special measures. We take the view that, during the induction period, the individual teacher needs support and assistance, which should primarily come from the school. The prime responsibility of a school that has been found to be failing and is under special measures—there are nearly 500 such schools—must be to turn itself around and restore itself to good health so that it can offer the standards that we all want. In those circumstances, we believe that the school will not be able to give the necessary support and assistance to a student undergoing the induction year and that such schools should be precluded from offering an induction period.
Amendment No. 87 would allow a local education authority to decide whether a teacher has achieved the necessary standards during the induction period. The LEA—if it is the appropriate body in the circumstances—may decide that the period has been successfully completed, or that the induction should be extended by a specified amount of time, or that the teacher has failed to complete the induction to its satisfaction.
Amendments Nos. 88 and 92 enable regulations to be put in place so that the appropriate body can exercise functions in relation to the induction arrangements; in particular, they enable the appropriate bodies to make charges for carrying out those functions. We believe that LEAs are uniquely placed to carry out that important role. That is why we do not support amendment No. 119, which would remove that responsibility from a local education authority. The School Standards and Framework Bill gives a new duty to LEAs to promote high standards; we believe that involvement in the induction process is an important way in which LEAs can support our crusade to raise standards.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 93 are designed to clarify the existing appeal provisions. Amendment No. 91 enables regulations to require the employer of a teacher at a maintained or non-maintained school either to secure the termination of the teacher's employment or to give that teacher other duties in the school during any appeal. Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are technical; I do not want to delay the House by going through their requirements in detail.
The amendments are significant and I commend them to the House. They improve the induction arrangements, clarify provision and ensure that additional responsibilities are not placed on failing schools. If amendment No. 119 is pressed, I ask the House to oppose it.

Mrs. May: Given the time constraint, I shall speak to amendment No. 119 only briefly. In response to the debate on the previous group of amendments, the Minister referred to his expectations about the future of schools.

We know that his hopes for the structure of schools are different from those of the Secretary of State—that is reflected in the Bill, particularly in its references to local education authorities.
Amendment No. 119 would remove clause 19(4), which prescribes that the appropriate body should mean the local education authority. We do not believe that the flexibility that is allowed is sufficient; we think that the Government should consider the matter—and perhaps even the role of the General Teaching Council—more widely. We shall debate the council tomorrow, but I believe that if it is to be the body that determines the professional status of teachers and whether the teachers it registers satisfy its high professional standards, it has a role to play in this matter. Appropriate bodies should not primarily be local education authorities, especially as, in the future that the Minister seems to prescribe, they will cease to exist.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 11, line 24, leave out from 'decide' to end of line 27 and insert 'whether a person—

(i) has achieved those standards and has accordingly satisfactorily completed his induction period, or
(ii) should have his induction period extended by such period as may be determined by the appropriate body, or
(iii) has failed satisfactorily to complete his induction period;'.

No. 88, in page 11, leave out lines 28 to 31.

No. 89, in page 11, line 33, leave out
'on the matter referred to in paragraph (f)(i)'
and insert
'as to whether a person has achieved the standards mentioned in paragraph (e)'.

No. 90, in page 11, leave out lines 34 and 35.

No. 91, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'to' to end of line 42 and insert
'secure—

(i) the termination of that person's employment as a teacher, or
(ii) that he only undertakes such teaching duties as may be determined in accordance with the regulations,

in such circumstances following a decision that he has failed satisfactorily to complete his induction period as may be prescribed;'.

No. 92, in page 11, line 42, at end insert—
'(ka) authorising or requiring the appropriate body to exercise such other functions as may be prescribed (which may include functions with respect to the provision of assistance to schools or of training for teachers);
(kb) authorising the appropriate body in such circumstances as may be prescribed to make such reasonable charges in connection with the exercise of its functions under the regulations as it may determine;'.

No. 93, in page 12, line 4, at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations under this section shall include provision conferring on a person aggrieved by a decision under subsection (2)(f) a right to appeal against the decision to one of the following, namely—

(a) the Secretary of State, or
(b) the Council or the General Teaching Council for Wales;



and any decision made on such an appeal shall be final.
(3B) Regulations mde in pursuance of subsection (3A) may make provision for, or for the determination in accordance with the regulations of, such matters relating to such appeals as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.'.

No. 94, in page 12, line 19, at end insert—
'(6A) Where, in accordance with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(k)(ii), a teacher employed at a school maintained by a local education authority—

(a) continues to be employed at the school, but,
(b) is not undertaking his normal teaching duties there,

any costs incurred by the local education authority in respect of the teacher's emoluments shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year except in so far as the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.
Nothing in this subsection applies to a maintained school at any time when the school does not have a delegated budget.'.

No. 95, in page 12, line 20, at end insert—
'(aa) any reference to a school's budget share or to its not having a delegated budget has the same meaning as in Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and'.

No. 96, in page 12, leave out lines 21 to 23.

No. 97, in page 12, line 25, leave out
'subsection (12) of that section'
and insert
'section 218(12) of the Education Reform Act 1988'.—
[Mr. Byers.]

Clause 20

INSPECTION OF INSTITUTIONS TRAINING TEACHERS FOR SCHOOLS

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 8, after 'appropriate', insert
'following consultation with the relevant institutions on the contents of any such reports, oral and written'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 13, line 10, at end insert—
'(c) carry out an inspection at a relevant institution no more than once in a period of four years, unless at the request of a relevant institution.'.
No. 5, in page 13, line 23, leave out from 'which' to 'under' in line 24 and insert
'is relevant to the inspection'.
Government amendment No. 98.

Mr. Foster: I shall be brief, as time is limited. I must make clear that Liberal Democrat Members have no objection to the principle of inspection of initial teacher training provision by the Office for Standards in Education. Our three amendments enable us to raise some of our concerns about the practice of such inspections. Perhaps I should quickly declare an interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that my wife is an initial teacher trainer, as I used to be, and in the past couple of years has spent many hundreds of hours preparing for and being involved in Ofsted inspections at her university.
It is vital that inspections should not only provide information that helps to raise standards in teacher training, but that they should not place undue and

unnecessary burdens on the institutions, to the detriment of their work with students. To that end, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and Ofsted have already established, with various other bodies, a joint working party to develop a draft protocol for inspections. That protocol, with the various guidelines on procedures for inspections, is likely to be published in the summer and will cover many matters, including the minimum period of notice for inspections, advance publication of the inspection methodology and a complaints procedure.
The House should be aware that the protocol will not be binding on Her Majesty's chief inspector, so we argue that it is important that some of the matters that are likely to be in the protocol are reflected in the Bill. That is why we have tabled the amendments, the first of which would ensure consultation with the relevant institutions before the final report was published. The report is crucial to the initial teacher training institutions since their quality grading—and hence their student allocations—are based on it. If the amendment is accepted it will ensure that there is, for example, an opportunity to correct factual errors and to ensure consistency between the oral feedback and the eventual report.
Amendment No. 39 would limit the frequency of inspections to once every four years—even that would be more frequent than school inspections. The present frequency of inspections gives great cause for concern, not only for the initial teacher training institutions but for their partner schools, which also receive inspection visits to watch students on placement. In my wife's institution, for example, more than one third of the current year has been taken up by Ofsted inspections. Such a high frequency causes enormous difficulties and creates significant costs. Important though inspections are, they should not become a huge administrative and financial burden, causing institutions to feel that they are on a permanent treadmill, hence the suggestion of a once-in-four-years cycle.
Amendment No. 5 would ensure that the records and documents inspected and copied by Ofsted are only those relevant to the inspection in question. Universities are right to be concerned that Ofsted should not have a completely free hand to rummage around wherever it pleases without the university even having the right to query HMI's consideration of what is relevant.
Inspection is important if it helps to ensure that the standards of initial teacher training are raised; the amendments would help to do just that.

Mr. Byers: In the brief time available I shall try to deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and speak to Government amendment No. 98, which would ensure that the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, had a right not merely to inspect teacher training, which is defined in clause 20, but to extend it to cover a teacher serving an induction period. It is not clear at present that Ofsted would have that power.
I am fully aware of the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath about these matters. He is a one-man campaign to hold Ofsted accountable and Her Majesty's chief inspector individually responsible for the various actions of that body. However, I am not convinced that his amendments would achieve his objective. The Government's view is that the joint working group that has been established between Ofsted and the CVCP to


draw up a protocol to take forward these matters is the best way forward. Amendment No. 3 would add an extra, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the process for inspecting teacher training institutions.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government are introducing an eight-week period of notice before an inspection of English teacher training institutions. Do they intend to introduce a similar period of notice in Scotland? If not, can the Minister explain why not and state what period of notice will be given in Scotland?

Mr. Byers: I am sure that, as a Scottish Member, the hon. Gentleman would not want an English Minister to decide those matters—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Scottish National party and that is why I made that point. As a Scottish Member he will, no doubt, want to raise that matter with the Scottish Office, which has responsibility for it.
The amendments are not appropriate and I ask the House to resist them.

Mr. Don Foster: In the brief time available could the Minister at least give the House an absolute assurance that, once developed, the protocol will be expected to be observed by HMCI and the inspectors?

Mr. Byers: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [19 May] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 14, line 25, after '(b);' insert—
'(ba) "in-service training" includes any training provided to a teacher serving an induction period (within the meaning of section 19 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998);'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Schedule 2

DISCIPLINARY POWERS OF COUNCIL

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 39, line 38, after 'for', insert 'and in connection with'.

No. 15, in page 39, line 43, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.

No. 16, in page 39, line 47, leave out 'for'.

No. 17, in page 40, line 7, leave out 'legally represented' and insert
'represented, by any person whom he desires to represent him,'.

No. 18, in page 40, line 10, at end insert'—


'(ca) empowering the Council to require persons to attend and give evidence or to produce documents or other material evidence;
(cb) about the admissibility of evidence;
(cc) enabling the Council to administer oaths;'.

No. 19, in page 40, line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) No person shall be required by virtue of the regulations to give any evidence or produce any document or other material evidence which he could not be compelled to give or produce in civil proceedings in any court in England and Wales.'.

No. 20, in page 40, line 20, leave out '18' and insert '19'.

No. 21, in page 40, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) In framing any regulations under section 218(6) of that Act the Secretary of State may similarly take account of the functions conferred on the Council by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (so far as not excluded or restricted by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)); and any such regulations may include provision with respect to the allocation of cases between the Secretary of State and the Council and the reference of cases by one of them to the other.'.

No. 22, in page 40, line 22, after 'provision', insert
'for and in connection with'.

No. 23, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.

No. 24, in page 40, line 31, at end insert
',and of his right to appeal against the order under paragraph 5A;
(aa) as to the time when any such order takes effect, whether in a case where any such person exercises that right of appeal or otherwise;'.

No. 25, in page 40, line 43, leave out 'relating' and insert 'relevant'.

No. 26, in page 40, line 44, at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) the conditions which may be specified in a conditional registration order include conditions for requiring the person in question to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his becoming a competent teacher; and
(b) conditions may be so specified (whether for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or otherwise) that will involve expenditure on the part of that person.'.

No. 27, in page 40, line 45, leave out 'so specified' and insert
'specified in a conditional registration order'.

No. 28, in page 41, line 20, at end insert—

Appeals against disciplinary orders

5A.—(1) Regulations shall make provision for conferring on a person aggrieved by a disciplinary order made in relation to him under this Schedule a right to appeal against the order to the High Court within 28 days from the date on which notice of the order is served on him.
(2) On such an appeal the Court may make any order which appears appropriate.
(3) No appeal shall lie from any decision of the Court on such an appeal.'.

No. 29, in page 41, line 24, after 'provision' insert—

'(a) for the Council, where a disciplinary order takes effect in relation to a person, to serve notice of the order on that person's employer;
(b) requiring the employer of any such person to take in relation to that person such steps in consequence of the order (which may include his dismissal) as may be prescribed;



(c)'.
No. 30, in page 41, line 41, after 'means', insert—
'(a) in the case of a conviction in the United Kingdom,'.

No. 31, in page 41, line 43, at end insert
',and
(b) in the case of a conviction elsewhere, an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a);'.

No. 32, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'serious professional misconduct' and insert 'unacceptable professional conduct'.

No. 33, in page 41, line 45, at end insert—
'(2) Where regulations under paragraph 9(1)(b) of Schedule 1 require the Council to establish a committee for the purpose of discharging any of the functions conferred on them by virtue of this Schedule, references in this Schedule to the Council shall be construed, in relation to those functions, as references to that committee.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

New clause 5

SUPPLY OF INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH STUDEN LOANS: SCOTLAND

'.After section 73C of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following section—

Supply of information in connection with student loans

73D.—(1) This section applies to any information which is held—

(a) by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or
(b) by a person providing services to those Commissioners and in connection with the provision of those services.

(2) Information to which this section applies may be supplied to—

(a) the Secretary of State or the Department of Education for Northern Ireland,
(b) any person or body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or that department under the delegation of functions provisions, or
(c) any person or body by whom any function of the Secretary of State or that department is for the time being exercisable to any extent by virtue of the transfer of functions provisions,

for the purpose of enabling or assisting the recipient to exercise any function in connection with the operation of the student loans scheme.

(3) Information supplied under subsection (2) above shall not be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied—

(a) to a person or body to whom it could have been supplied under that subsection, or
(b) for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the student loans scheme.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) above extend only to the supply of information by or under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section.

(6) In this section—
the delegation of functions provisions" means section 73AA(3) of this Act or section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) (4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;
the transfer of function provisions" means section 73AA(1) of this Act or section (Transfer or delegation

of functions relating to student support) (1) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;and
the student loans scheme" means the provisions of

(i) regulations under section 73(f) of this Act with respect to loans; or
(ii) regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 so far as having effect in relation to loans under that section,

and in this subsection any reference to a provision of this Act includes a reference to any corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.".'.—[Dr. Howells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support.
Government new clause 8—Supply of information in connection with student loans.
Government amendments Nos. 69, 71, 76, 65, 66, 70, 67 and 72.
Amendment No. 111, in clause 22, page 17, line 38, at end insert—
'(11A) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations under any provision of this section shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(11B) A statutory instrument containing the second or subsequent regulations under any provision of this section which is made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 100, in clause 27, page 21, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 42 on page 26.
Government amendments Nos. 40 to 54.
Amendment No. 114, in clause 35, page 33, leave out lines 30 to 34.
Government amendments Nos. 75 and 68.

Dr. Howells: I shall speak to all the Government new clauses and amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will appreciate that. I also welcome the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to her new position and, of course, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to his greatly elevated position, as well as the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
In Committee, I made it clear that the Government would table a number of amendments on Report designed to ensure that the new student support arrangements, in particular the new arrangements for repaying income-contingent loans, worked smoothly. Those amendments are contained within this group. Although there are many individual amendments, they deal with only a small number of substantive issues, so I hope that I shall not detain the House too long in discussing them.
Essentially, the new clauses and amendments do five key things. They provide for the Inland Revenue to make available information to the Student Loans Company for the purpose of loan repayment. They will enable the Secretary of State to transfer or delegate his functions under the student support regulations to the bodies that


will administer the scheme, and will enable him to put in place appeals mechanisms in relation to any matters covered in the regulations. They also provide for the Secretary of State to determine, through regulations, the priority that loan repayments should take in relation to other deductions by employers. Finally, they will give the Secretary of State the power to impose penalties on those who fail to comply with the requirements of the new loan repayment regime. The group also contains a number of technical and consequential drafting amendments.

Mr. Willis: One of the major issues in Committee was whether regulations would be available for students when they took our their loans at the beginning of the new university session this year. We were "promised" that amendments would be tabled to guarantee that regulations would be in place, but I have received a copy of a letter sent to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which clearly states that the regulations will not be in place. Is the Minister saying that students will be able to take out loans this year, but will have to sign a legally binding document for which the regulations will not be in place?

Dr. Howells: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) knows that I have written to the hon. Member for Havant, and I have had a copy of the letter sent to him. I felt it important that he knew that we did not think that the regulations would be drawn up in total. I did not want regulations that were partial or that tried to patch together the whole matrix of regulations that will govern the procedure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we will produce a watertight description of what signing for a loan means, what will be delivered and what will be meant by repayment. That will be of infinitely more value to students and their families than the sort of regulations that, as I said in Committee, are rarely read anyway. I give the undertaking that there will be a document for all students and their families to read, which will indicate exactly what they are entering into by signing the contract for income-contingent loans.
New clause 5, for Scotland, and new clause 8, for England and Wales, provide for the Inland Revenue to disclose information to the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Scotland, to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland and, by extension, to bodies to which functions are transferred or delegated under the Bill. In practice, that will allow the Revenue to disclose information to the Student Loans Company, to which the Secretary of State's functions in relation to loan repayment will be delegated. For example, the Revenue will be able to provide details of repayments made via employers to enable the Student Loans Company to update borrowers' accounts.
The amendments are necessary to allow the Inland Revenue's legal duty of confidentiality to the taxpayer to be set aside in the specific case of information required for the collection of loan repayments. Without it, it would be impossible to collect repayments through the tax system. I hasten to add that the normal requirements of the Data Protection Acts will continue to apply in respect of any information that is disclosed under these provisions. There is no question of general details of a borrower's tax affairs being disclosed, but merely information that is relevant to loan repayment. We will

make it clear to students before they take out their loans that the information that they provide on their application forms may be passed to the Revenue for the purposes of collecting repayments. There is no need for specific provision in legislation for that purpose.
New clause 6 and, for Scotland, amendment No. 41 clarify the Secretary of State's powers to transfer and delegate the powers given to him in respect of student support, replacing and improving on provisions already in the Bill.
Right hon. and hon. Members will note that the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State alone to make grants or loans to students. That is different from current student support legislation, which gives the Secretary of State powers to make arrangements for making and collecting loans, and which, in England and Wales, places duties on local education authorities in respect of mandatory and discretionary awards. A variety of bodies will be involved in administration of the new loans scheme, including LEAs, higher education institutions, the Student Loans Company and the Inland Revenue. New clause 6 and amendment No. 41 accordingly provide for those bodies to exercise powers instead of, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 41 differs from new clause 6 in that it does not specifically mention LEAs, which are not involved in administration of student support in Scotland.
The new provisions allow functions to be transferred to LEAs and higher education institutions which, as independent bodies, already have distinct responsibilities for administering aspects of the existing awards and loans schemes. Functions will not be transferred to other bodies, but will be delegated. The Secretary of State will retain overall responsibility, and will be subject to judicial review. We believe that that is more appropriate in the case of bodies such as the Student Loans Company, which is wholly owned by the two Secretaries of State, or the Inland Revenue, which will collect loan repayments on the Secretary of State's behalf.
The new provisions also enable the Secretary of State to establish an appeals procedure in respect of functions that are transferred or delegated. We are considering the details of the appeals mechanism, but I am happy to give an undertaking that a right of appeal will be put in place in relation to collection of student loans.
Part of amendment No. 69 and, for Scotland, amendment No. 50 relates to appeals. The amendments will enable the Secretaries of State to put in place appeals mechanisms where functions have not been transferred or delegated, but have been imposed by regulation, as in the case in which they are undertaken by employers. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the provisions offer borrowers full protection against potential maladministration of the scheme.
New clause 6 and amendment No. 41 also provide for the Secretary of State to make payments to bodies to which functions are transferred or delegated, or which are appointed to hear appeals. The payments can be toward the cost of making grants or loans, or as payment for administering the scheme.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, and, for Scotland, amendment No. 48, allow for a relationship to be established between the Bill's student support provisions and other legislation that governs deductions from income. They will allow other legislation to be amended


accordingly. The amendments are necessary to take into account the fact that students and graduates may be subject to other deductions from their income. A court may, for example, impose an attachment of earnings order for unpaid council taxes or fines. There is also a limit to the amount that employers may deduct from an employee's income—the protected earnings rate, which is designed to ensure that the employee is left with enough to live on. Where total deductions payable exceed the limit, it is obviously necessary to determine which deductions should take priority. Amendments Nos. 70 and 48 enable provision to be made in regulations for determining the priority of student loan repayments and other amounts due from the borrower.
Hon. Members will note that the Bill will enable provisions to be made in regulations for student loan repayments to be deducted at source through the tax system, as the Dearing committee recommended. That will have an impact on other legislation governing deductions from income where that legislation defines how the deductions are to be calculated. Amendments Nos. 69 and 48 would permit other legislation to be amended through regulations to take account of the impact of loan repayments. The amendments would also allow income from student loans or grants to be taken into account or disregarded when calculating a person's total income for the purpose of some other deductions.
Amendment No. 65 and. for Scotland, amendment No. 45, ensure that provisions can be made for the imposition of penalties on borrowers or persons required to make deductions from borrowers' pay in the event of default. The amendments provide for the imposition of interest and penalties on borrowers who fail to make repayments that are due, or to provide information when required to do so. They also provide the means to impose penalties on those charged with making deductions from the borrower's salary when the borrower wilfully or negligently fails to carry out that obligation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we should have the power to recover public money that would be lost as a result of wilful default.
The provisions will have no effect, of course, on those who meet their obligations. The precise penalties that apply will be set out in regulations. We envisage that they will not exceed those that apply to non-payment of income tax or national insurance contributions. For employers, that might mean the imposition of a penalty if they fail to make deductions from the borrower's salary or transmit payments to the Inland Revenue, although that would apply only when the failure was due to fraud or negligence. For borrowers, interest would he charged on any outstanding repayments, and in the event of persistent default, further surcharges might be applied, on which interest would also be charged. I stress that the charging of interest is not intended to be punitive, but is necessary to cover losses of public funds. Similarly, penalties are intended to be no higher than is necessary to discourage wilful or negligent default such as I have described.
Amendment No. 51 is technical, and relates only to the Scottish provisions. It will enable the regulations governing the student loan scheme in Scotland to deal appropriately with borrowers who are declared bankrupt or sequestrated. Individuals who have been declared bankrupt have always been eligible to receive student loans, to enable them to undertake courses of higher education which might—we hope—improve their prospects.
Arrangements are in place to ensure that any loan payment for maintenance received during the period of such courses cannot be claimed by creditors. Amendment No. 51 will ensure that that situation can continue in Scotland. Parallel provisions are not needed for the English clauses, which are already sufficiently widely drawn.
6.30 pm
Amendment No. 68 extends the scope of certain provisions of the student support clauses for Northern Ireland. That is necessary to ensure that the scheme can operate effectively on a United Kingdom basis. For example, if an English student takes out a loan and goes on to work in Northern Ireland, we shall need to be able to impose duties on his or her employer in relation to loan repayment. Separate provisions with the same effect in relation to Scotland are contained in amendment No. 61.
Amendments Nos. 40, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 49, 52 to 54, 66, 67, 71 to 73, 75 and 76 are either purely technical or consequential to the changes that I have described, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Minister for his nearly gracious welcome to the Dispatch Box, and I assure him that, as a fellow Welshman, I not only know his constituency, but can pronounce it, which may put me at an advantage over some hon. Members. It was kind of him to give us a full description of the various new clauses and amendments. I will be briefer, because I know that this is very much the hors d'oeuvres to the main course to be served this evening. I am sure that he will be as pleased as I am to see how many of his colleagues appear to wish to speak in that later debate. In this and in future appearances at the Dispatch Box, I will be as constructive and helpful as the Government deserve in every case.
In that spirit, I must question the Government's competence in having to make so many changes to the Bill. From the outset, the motto for their policy has been, "React in haste and legislate in panic". In this relatively small part of the Bill, they have tabled three new clauses and 14 amendments, which does not suggest a finely crafted piece of legislation.
The essential purpose of amendments Nos. 111 and 114 is to allow the House a significant say in the future organisation of the loan system. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the loans will be an extremely important part of life for many millions of families over the years, and that to have all the powers relating to their organisation delegated to the Secretary of State, with only minimal parliamentary scrutiny, is wrong both for those who will receive the loans and for the respect in which one would hope that the Government hold the House.
Too much of the Bill, and especially this part, is skeletal—that word was used a lot in Committee—and too much power has been left in the Secretary of State's hands. The purpose of the regulations appears to be to allow maximum flexibility for the Secretary of State and minimum flexibility for those in charge of higher education and student loans. That is exactly the wrong way round and the Government should rapidly reverse the policy. The debate in Committee reverberated with that worry.
I assure those who toiled in the vineyard of the Standing Committee that, although they may have thought that they were talking only to each other, they have had at least one extremely avid reader of every word that they said, so their labours were not in vain. I am delighted to say that I am up to speed with all the great thoughts expressed by members of the Committee from all parties in what appear, from the Hansard report, to have been some quite long sittings in which, although wisdom was dispensed, it was not necessarily received.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred to the letter that the Minister sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which may symbolise why it is so important to make amendments Nos. 111 and 114. The Minister said that he would try to make the regulations available for scrutiny in time, and he has simply failed to do so.
The letter says:
instead of draft (or partial) regulations we should produce a detailed guide to the repayment terms for students which will be published in the summer.
It will be impossible for that detailed guide to be accurate and full, simply because the regulations will not be available. The letter continues:
the regulations will need to be laid … probably in early 1999—in order to allow employers sufficient time to make whatever arrangements they need to implement collection.
If the regulations are not laid until early 1999—they have been significantly delayed once already—students and their families will not know this autumn what regulations will be in place to organise their loans, and could be left in uncertainty for some months. That extra uncertainty may discourage students from taking out loans or, even worse, from taking up places and contributes, in its own small way, to the damaging effects of other parts of the Bill.
Our essential purpose is that priority should be given to Parliament and not to the Secretary of State. Why are Departments to be excluded by amendment No. 71 from the obligations on employers? I may be unduly cynical, but when I see that impositions are to be placed on non-public bodies, but that Departments are to be excused those obligations, my eyebrows go up and I suspect that the convenience of Whitehall is coming before that of the citizens of this country. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
What will be covered by the word "emoluments" in amendment No. 76 that would not be covered by "remuneration"? It is important at this stage to clear up as much as possible of the uncertainty that students and their families will face.
The Minister has said a couple of things that I also found slightly disturbing. First, he talked about a protected earnings rate being retained. Visions of the Child Support Agency appeared before me. One hopes that, with all the uncertainty that we have had in setting up the regulations, the House will not, in two or three years' time, be reverberating to debates about constituents complaining bitterly that student loan organisations do not understand what sort of protected earnings rate they need. The proposal seems similar to the provision for the agency. I hope for the sake of all concerned that we are not setting up the same sort of organisational mess as arose with the agency.
Secondly, I am disturbed that details of the penalties, particularly those that will be imposed on employers, are to be left to some later date. Again, the various Government amendments and new clauses seem to suggest throughout that it will be the employer who will be in the frame, rather than the Government or even the individual who may be defaulting on the loan.
This is a wide-ranging set of powers. It is wrong for all the powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State without sufficient scrutiny by Parliament. I hope that the Government will accept our amendments because they do not in any way alter the main purpose of this part of the Bill. They will give the House the proper scrutiny that it will need over the years to ensure that these arrangements are made satisfactorily and fairly, in the interests of all those who will be concerned with student loans.

Mr. Welsh: I say to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the official Opposition spokesperson, that the hors d'oeuvres are just as unpalatable as the main course. The Government amendments simply clear up the debris covering the Government's mistaken policy. Attention has been deliberately focused on the introduction of unfair tuition fees, but the real deterrent to university students and to their families is student loans. Future generations of young people and their families will find themselves saddled with considerable debts on loans, as well as on tuition fees, and all that will have been placed on them by Ministers who benefited from the grant system. They should be ashamed of themselves for the way in which they are acting.
Worse still, as the Government sell off the debt loans book to private hands, income from repayments will disappear into those private hands as profit. None of it will return to replenish or to improve the higher education system. It is bad enough that tuition fees will be paid and then disappear out of the university system, but that will be compounded by the Government's short-term policy of student loan privatisation.
The Scottish National party has consistently opposed both the privatisation of student loans and the student loans system. The amendments simply tinker with the detail of collection, while the glaring unfairness of the Government's failure to fund the university system properly will mean that the situation will worsen for universities as they deal with their student populations.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the SNP make it clear that it will sort out this horrible mess in the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Welsh: That is a very good point, which I shall come to later. A fundamental change in policy is required to sort this mess out.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Welsh: No. Time is short.
I therefore support amendment No. 100, which would remove the Scottish provisions. This matter should be dealt with by the new Scottish Parliament, not imposed by this Parliament. The Minister has recognised that the Scottish system is distinct. In less than a year, that Scots Parliament will be in charge of Scottish education. There is no reason why it should not also deal with this matter.
It is bad enough that legitimate Scottish questions are ducked by an English Minister when a Scottish Office Minister, the Minister for Education and Industry, is sitting next to him, as happened in a previous debate. It is worse when this Parliament does not allow the Scottish Parliament to undertake what are legitimate devolved matters. This matter should be dealt with by that new Parliament. It should not suffer diktat by this organisation.

Dr. Howells: There are many questions to answer in two minutes.
I understand that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) envisages an SNP-controlled regime in future. He has said:
We will make good, as far as we can within the limit of resources given".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 20 May 1998;c. 22.]
I have heard that one before somewhere.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked me to explain the difference between emoluments and remuneration. I was tempted to say cars, but I think it is a broader definition, which encompasses benefit in kind, in Whitehall-speak; I hope that he will accept that as an answer. I tried to deal with the points that he raised about regulations as honestly as I could in my answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who has properly pressed us on this matter on several occasions, and in my letter to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).

It being one hour and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [19 May] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New clause 6

TRANSFER OR DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS RELATING TO STUDENT SUPPORT

'.—(1) If the Secretary of State so determines, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 22 shall, to such extent as is specified in his determination, be exercisable instead by such body as is so specified which is either—

(a) a local education authority for the purposes of the Education Act 1996, or
(b) the governing body of an institution at which eligible students (within the meaning of such regulations) are attending courses.

(2) A body by whom any function is for the time being exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that function.

(3) Where any function is so exercisable by a local education authority, the function shall be taken to be a function of that authority for the purposes of—

(a) section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities),and

(b) section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (contracting out of functions of local authorities).

(4) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for any person or body specified in the arrangements to exercise on his behalf, to such extent as is so specified, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 22 (including any such function in relation to appeals).

(5) Any arrangements made under subsection (4) shall not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the function in question himself.

(6) The Secretary of State may make provision for enabling appeals—

(a) to be made with respect to such matters arising out of the exercise by any person or body of any function by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) as he may determine, and
(b) to be so made to a person or body appointed by him for the purpose.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay to any body or person by whom any function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (4)—

(a) such amounts as he considers appropriate for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body or person—

(i) in making grants or loans under section 22, or
(ii) by way of administrative expenses,

in, or in connection with, the exercise of that function;
(b) in a case where the function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (4), such remuneration as he may determine.

(8) Any payment under subsection (7)(a) may be made subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may determine; and any such conditions may in particular—

(a) require the provision of returns or other information before any such payment is made;
(b) relate to the use of the amount paid or require the repayment in specified circumstances of all or part of the amount paid.

(9) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body appointed by him under subsection (6) such remuneration or administrative expenses (or both) as he may determine.

(10) In relation to any function which, by virtue of subsection (1) or (4), is exercisable to a specified extent, references in any other provision of this section to the exercise of that function are accordingly to its exercise to that extent.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

SUPPLY OF INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH STUDENT LOANS

'.—(1) This section applies to any information which is held—

(a) by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or
(b) by a person providing services to those Commissioners and in connection with the provision of those services.

(2) Information to which this section applies may be supplied to—

(a) the Secretary of State or the Department of Education for Northern Ireland,
(b) any person or body acting on behalf of the Secretary of State or that Department under the delegation of functions provisions, or
(c) any authority or governing body by whom any function of the Secretary of State or that Department is for the time being exercisable to any extent by virtue of the transfer of functions provisions,

for the purpose of enabling or assisting the recipient to exercise any function in connection with the operation of the student loans scheme.

(3) Information supplied under subsection (2) shall not be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied—

(a) to a person or body to whom it could be supplied under that subsection, or
(b) for the purposes of any civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the student loans scheme.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) extend only to the supply of information by or under the authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be supplied apart from this section.

(6) In this section—

(a) "the delegation of functions provisions" means section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) (4) of this Act or section 73AA(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;
(b) "the transfer of functions provisions" means section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) (1) of this Act or section 73AA(1) of that Act; and
(c) "the student loans scheme" means the provisions of—

(i) regulations under section 22 of this Act so far as having effect in relation to loans under that section, or
(ii) regulations under section 73(f) of that Act made with respect to loans;

and in this subsection any reference to a provision of this Act includes a reference to any corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 22

NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR GIVING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO STUDENTS

Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 15, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) No regulations may be made under this section if their effect would be to disadvantage students by reason of their residence in one part of the United Kingdom as opposed to their residence in any other part.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 2, in page 15, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations under this section shall provide that, for an eligible student who attends a higher education institution in Scotland and whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales, the payment of grant in respect of fees shall be made on the same basis as for a student whose parental home or normal place of residence is in Scotland.'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 17, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) Regulations under this section shall make provision for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth or any subsequent year of study at any higher education institution in the United Kingdom to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at the institution is in any part of the United Kingdom.'.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 28, page 26, line 42, at end insert—
'(3H) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that fees in respect of tuition for the fourth

or subsequent year of any course of higher education at a publicly-funded institution in Scotland shall only be payable by the student concerned where a grant in the same amount has been made available for that purpose to that student.
(3I) In subsection (3H) "the student concerned" means any student at a publicly-funded institution of higher education in Scotland whose normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in any part of the European Union.'.

New clause 1—Commencement of sections 27 and 28—
'.—Sections 27 and 28 shall come into force when ratified by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.'.
New clause 3—Treatment of students regarding tuition fees—
'Under any regulations of this enactment relating to tuition fees, students normally resident in the United Kingdom who are doing the same course at the same college or university shall be treated on the same basis, irrespective of their country of residence within the United Kingdom.'.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 39, page 34, line 31, leave out '28' and insert '26'.

Mr. Willetts: I thank Ministers for their kind welcome to my new Front-Bench colleagues: my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Ashford (Mr. Green). I thank Ministers for their best wishes after our reshuffle. I hope now that they can get on with their reshuffle, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer removes his objections, and that they are suitably rewarded when it comes.
The central statement in amendment No. 102 is simple. Things have come to a pretty pass when that simple statement—that students from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should not be disadvantaged, when it comes to access to a university within the United Kingdom, because of where they happen to have been born or to be living—has become the subject of controversy in the House.
We have reached an absurd position. The Government are going to try to whip people through the Division Lobby in defence of the proposition that there should be disadvantages for students dependent on which part of the United Kingdom they happen to be residing in. I am encouraged that that essential point is conveyed not just in our amendment, but in the other amendments, which have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, and, indeed, by some Labour Members as well.
All we are talking about is one nation. The Prime Minister has tried rather cheekily to use the language of one nation. If one nation means anything, it means that access to higher education in this United Kingdom should not depend on one's place of birth—

The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a student living somewhere else in the UK who chooses to do a four-year degree course in Scotland is conferring on him or herself an advantage or a disadvantage?

Mr. Willetts: It is an advantage both for the student in question and for the Scottish university. Scottish universities want their flow of students from outside Scotland.
We would not give our amendment priority over amendments and new clauses tabled by other parties with the same objective. If, within the procedures set down for these debates, we could have a vote on new clause 3, we would be much happier; but as new clause 3 comes much later, the danger is, given the time restriction, that we would end up unable to vote on this measure at all.

Mr. Jamieson: indicated dissent.'

Mr. Willetts: I assure the Whip that that is the procedural position, and it is why we will press our amendment to a vote, in the hope that other Members who believe in the principles of one nation and non-discrimination will support us in the Lobby.
Someone from England, Wales or Northern Ireland—especially Northern Ireland, which lacks enough universities, and which sends many students to Scotland—will, absurdly, have to pay £4,000 in tuition fees to follow a four-year course in a Scottish university, whereas a Scottish student will have to pay only £3,000.
Ministers have managed to upset many English students who had hoped to go to Scotland for a four-year course. They have also managed to irritate and insult many people in Scottish universities who value this inflow of students. They have added insult to injury by claiming that the four-year Scottish course is merely the equivalent of the second year of English A-levels plus a normal three-year English degree course. That is not how many people in higher education in Scotland regard such courses; nor is it how English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who go to Scotland having completed their A-levels regard Scottish courses.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Some students from St. Andrews with whom I have just held discussions make the astonishing claim that students from France, Italy or Germany will be exempt from the additional £1,000 fee. Surely that cannot be true. Are the Government saying that a migrant worker from Italy living in London will be exempt, while someone from Southend will have to pay? Can my hon. Friend think of anything more ridiculous or insulting?

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite right—that is the next absurdity. The Government have angered English, Welsh and Northern Irish students, and insulted the people running Scottish universities—

Dr. Howells: Seething.

Mr. Willetts: I have held meetings with students who have come down here from the Scottish universities, and they are indeed seething. That is why they have come to the House to protest.

Dr. Howells: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman tell me why applications to Scottish universities from Welsh students are up this year?

Mr. Willetts: The Minister will know that there has been a significant increase in applications for three-year courses. With this ill-thought-out measure, he is distorting

the pattern of higher education in Scotland by forcing students to begin with the second year of a course instead of starting at its natural commencement.

Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that there is a reason: in Scotland, pupils do one year of A-levels; in Wales, England and Northern Ireland, they do two years. They are thus equipped to go into the second year of a Scottish degree course.

Mr. Willetts: I must warn the Minister against proceeding too far down that line of argument. Nothing irritates Scottish universities more than being told that the first year of an integrated four-year course is simply a repeat of the second year of an English A-level course. That is not how they regard it, nor is it how the vast majority of students from outside Scotland who go to Scottish universities regard it.

Caroline Flint: If that is so, why are Scottish universities allowing students from England into the second year of degree courses?

Mr. Willetts: The reason is that they face a serious problem. Because of the Government's actions, applications are increasingly for places to begin with the second year—instead of what students would prefer, which would be a full four-year course.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister do the House a service by telling us which Administration provided for students with A-levels from England and the rest of the UK to enter Scottish universities in the second year—Tory or Labour?

Mr. Willetts: That is not the point. It is clearly the preference of a majority of students from England with English A-levels to go to Scotland for a four-year integrated degree course. That is a coherent and sensible option, now liable to a £1,000 penalty.
The only people laughing—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—are the students from the rest of the European Union, who will enjoy the same regime as Scottish students. As was said in Committee, someone from Umbria will pay £3,000, but someone from Northumbria will pay £4,000. Not only will English students be disadvantaged compared with their Scottish counterparts: they will be disadvantaged compared with students from France, Germany, Italy and the rest of the EU.
This point was put to the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—incidentally, I should remind him that he is the Minister, not me. In answer to it, he said, "Because France is in the EU." If France is to have special treatment, what about England? Are not England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the EU as well? If the Minister carries on using this argument, he will find himself before the European Court of Justice having to explain why he is operating two different regimes.

Mr. Wilson: Does the shadow Minister genuinely not understand the fact that the different education systems that prevail in the UK are a matter for the Administration


of the UK, whereas students from EU countries studying in the United Kingdom have parity with the arrangements in any specific part of the UK? I should have thought that a man with two brains could grasp that.

Mr. Willetts: It is indeed a matter for the Government of the UK; all we ask is that that Government take a view about the whole of the UK. One reason for this mess is that the Scottish Office Minister may not have taken the DFEE Under-Secretary fully into his confidence when he was planning this little manoeuvre, which he suddenly launched on an amazed world—some time after the Government decided their policy on Dearing. So the Scottish Minister has made life very embarrassing for his colleagues in the DFEE, who have found themselves having to explain why they are unwilling to give English and other UK students the treatment being offered to Scottish students in Scotland. All we plead for is a United Kingdom approach.
It is no accident that the Government have got themselves into a mess on the Scottish question—the so-called Scottish anomaly. They have been getting themselves into a mess on aspect after aspect of the proposals on higher education, and have got into a series of muddles and improvisations.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to be a pest, but I want to put a straight question to the Government and stop the Minister laughing, because something filthy and foul is being done. Why the blazes should we have a special rule applying to French and Germans, but not to Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Australians or New Zealanders? That is not a question at which the Minister should laugh; he is doing something filthy and foul to Scottish universities, and he should be ashamed of himself.

7 pm

Mr. Willetts: Of course, we will not have heard the end of it tonight. Those who live by the European Court of Justice will die by the European Court of Justice: the Minister may come to regret the Government's attempt to impose a regime that discriminates against one part of the United Kingdom.
My point is that this is only one in a catalogue of disasters which began the day—23 July 1997—that the Government published the Dearing report and, on the same day, tore it up. It was when the Government failed to implement Dearing that they got themselves into the muddles on higher education policy that have bedevilled them ever since.
The Dearing committee was set up on a bipartisan basis—although we set it up when in government, we consulted the then Labour Opposition before doing so—and its report is the only serious game in town when it comes to the future of higher education in this country; it is a serious piece of work that sets out a way forward for higher education.
The Dearing committee had to be set up because we recognised that the time had come to take a serious look at the future financing of higher education. British universities had delivered heroic improvements in efficiency, so as to deliver a significant increase in

participation in higher education by British young people, while at the same time bringing down the cost of educating each individual student. The Dearing committee was set up to identify a way forward, and the way forward it identified was very clear.
First, the committee decided that the maintenance grant should stay. I think that the members of the committee probably began their deliberations expecting to conclude that the maintenance grant should go, but, after they had taken evidence and deliberated, it became clear to them that the case for the maintenance grant was overwhelming. They did not want to abolish the maintenance grant and end up with students from a modest-income background finding themselves, say, £10,000 in debt—far more than students from more affluent backgrounds.
It is impossible to defend the abolition of the maintenance grant and increased debt for students from low-income families, while simultaneously talking about a belief in wider access. Abolishing the maintenance grant and imposing greater debt on students from low-income backgrounds is incompatible with any serious commitment to widening access. The Dearing committee decided in favour of keeping the maintenance grant, and it was right to do so.
The committee also looked at tuition fees, and concluded in favour of a £1,000 tuition fee for each student. As we are consistent in our support for Dearing, we recognise that, if Dearing recommends tuition fees, the case for tuition fees is one that we must accept. However, the basis on which Dearing recommended tuition fees was that they would be a source of extra income for universities.
The committee did not envisage tuition fees being a student tax. For every £1,000 a university raises, the threat is of an offsetting reduction in the Government grant to universities. That is why we hope to make clear later in the debate our belief that tuition fees should be a source of extra revenue for universities rather than a means of displacing Exchequer grant.
Before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, told the Evening Standard:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees".
The Government are in a rather awkward position. The stage has been reached where believing that one should stand by the pledges made before an election makes one a rebel in today's Labour party—that is a path down which many Labour Members have had to tread in the past few months. If any Labour Member thinks that the Prime Minister was right to say that to the Evening Standard in March 1997, the Whips will descend threateningly, urging him or her to take constituency leave.
Of course, the Prime Minister appears to believe that he is implementing Dearing, and I should be fascinated to learn exactly what briefing he has been given by Education Ministers. At Prime Minister's Question Time, the right hon. Gentleman claimed:
I made it clear throughout
the election campaign
that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing Committee".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 892.]
If only he would. If he had done so, his Government would not have got into the mess in which they now find themselves, whereby they abolish maintenance grants


when the arguments in favour of the retention of maintenance grants are overwhelming; they impose tuition fees without the prospect of their bringing extra resources to universities as was promised; and they break their pre-election pledges.
Today, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has announced a package of measures that is supposed to assuage the concerns of many on both sides of the House about the provisions of the Bill. I studied the Secretary of State's package with some interest, because he has some skill—I pay tribute to it—in plucking a little package out of the air every time he is in some political difficulty.
I realised that the package announced today is the same as the one announced on 23 September, when the right hon. Gentleman was going to speak to the Labour party conference about this measure; and it was the same as the one announced on 4 November when he was coming to the House to face a Supply day debate. What is interesting is not that he announces a package every time, but that he announces the same package every time. We have spotted that.

Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant difference between those packages, which is that full-time undergraduates aged over 50 but less than 55 will now be entitled to loans?

Mr. Willetts: Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the House his exact date of birth? I suspect that that measure is a desperate attempt to curry the support of the Liberal Democrats later this evening—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall for it.
The package is nothing that the House has not seen before, and the financing for it is to be achieved purely by delaying payments to universities. The only way the Secretary of State can fund that extra resource, which he has plucked out of thin air, is by delaying the payment of the annual grant to universities, so that, instead of coming in a single one-off payment, it is to be made in three separate payments, with the third coming in the subsequent financial year.
That will yield savings in the first financial year which the right hon. Gentleman can then put back into higher education in the form of the package that has been before the House so many times before. That is sleight of hand of rather impressive skill, but it is not a serious attempt to address the problems facing higher education because of the provisions of the Bill.
There is nothing in the so-called package that addresses the concerns felt by Members on both sides of the House, or our desire to ensure that maintenance grants continue. We do not believe that saddling students from low-income backgrounds with large debts is a sensible or convincing way of broadening access to higher education.

Ms Hodge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For 10 minutes or quarter of an hour, we have not addressed the issue of fees for students in Scottish universities. Is the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady has taken the words out of my mouth—perhaps she will do a good job

in the Chair one day. The point of order is correct, and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) should return to addressing the amendment.

Mr. Willetts: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall not pursue my points. I simply wanted to put it on the record that we had seen through the Secretary of State's sleight of hand in respect of the package. However, you are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The basic point is a simple one: if hon. Members on either side of the House believe in equitable treatment of students from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as part of one nation, they should support our amendment, which we shall press to a Division tonight.

Ms Hodge: I should say that I did not make my point of order so as to hasten my contribution to the debate, but I am delighted that you called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me start by saying that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has got it wrong, and, if he had not taken so many interventions in his speech, I would have risen to point that out. The proposal for the payment of fees in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with access to universities. That is a completely different point. Access to places in Scottish universities will depend, as it does now, on the qualifications and standards reached by those applying. The treatment of students within the universities will be different, not the access to the universities. I should have thought that someone with the hon. Gentleman's stated intelligence would have known that.

Mr. John Randall: I am concerned about degree courses that are offered only by Scottish universities—for example, Celtic studies—which people of Scottish parentage, living in England, might want to follow. Surely they would be put at a disadvantage because, coming from England, they could not study in Scotland on the same terms as someone who came from Scotland.

Ms Hodge: That point is central to the debate, and I shall deal with it in my speech.
We all know that there are different systems of education in Scotland and England. Indeed, one of the justifications for devolution in Scotland, which the Opposition do not support, is that the different systems can be administered by local people who have an affinity with the area. Students from Scotland enter university a year earlier than those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, because they finish their compulsory schooling a year earlier.
That is an anomaly that we must deal with, but it is one of many. To pull that anomaly out of the hat is to do a disservice to our attempt to ensure that there is equitable access to our universities and that the opportunity to study in higher education is open to the many, not the few.
Other anomalies are more important. Why should mature students in all universities be expected to pay fees, as many of them do? Why should part-time students be expected to pay fees, as they will have to until these changes are introduced? Mature and part-time students tend to come from lower socio-economic groupings. If we want, over the longer term, to introduce a system of student finance that opens opportunity to the many,


not the few, we must create a system that will allow us to open up maintenance loans and student grants to those groups before we open them up to Scottish students.
More importantly, why should students in further education—who are the subject of a recent Select Committee report—particularly those over 19, be expected to pay fees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady was kind enough to remind me about hon. Members straying from the subject of the amendment, I should advise her that, if her case relates to comparisons between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, I can rule her remarks in order.

Ms Hodge: Thank you for drawing me back to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to demonstrate that there is a series of anomalies and unfairnesses, and that, even if one were to deal with one anomaly, others would remain which are worthy of more immediate concern.

Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Lady seems to have a strange logic: she argues that, because there are other anomalies, the anomaly that is the subject of the debate should not be addressed. The fact that the world is full of anomalies does not mean that we should not deal with one when we have the chance.

Ms Hodge: We have to choose our priorities, and this anomaly would not be my top priority, given the costs involved in dealing with it.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is not the point that, although we are concerned about existing anomalies, tonight we shall create a further anomaly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is referring to amendments that we shall come to later.

Dr. Jones: Mr. Deputy Speaker, a new anomaly would be created in the treatment of students in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Ms Hodge: The direct answer to that point is that, if we were to accept the Opposition's proposal, we would create further anomalies.
I shall give my hon. Friend an example. Students would get a free education in St. Andrews or Edinburgh, but if they were taking a four-year course at the university of East London or the universities in my hon. Friend's constituency, they would not have that advantage. By trying to iron out one anomaly, we would create further anomalies.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady has described the essence of the anomaly—on the one hand, students who are domiciled in Scotland and go to a Scottish university will have their fourth year paid because they have one year less of compulsory full-time education, but if they go over

the border to an English university, they will have to pay for their fourth year. Surely that anomaly is unacceptable even in her terms.

Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is simply alluding to the fact that the Opposition amendment would create further anomalies.
I shall move on to other issues. Will the introduction of our measures for Scotland put off English students from applying to Scottish universities? That is what we should all be interested in. Are we, by our proposals, putting back the clock on access to higher education, or in any way constraining choice? The answer must be no.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his intervention on the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Havant, this year there has been an increase in the number of Welsh students who have applied to go to Scottish universities. More English, Welsh and Northern Irish students have applied to go to Scottish universities this year than Scottish students. If the proposals were as damaging as has been suggested by some hon. Members, that would not have happened.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Would the hon. Lady like to develop that argument further, and suggest that we should further increase fees so that even more students will apply?

Ms Hodge: I know that the Conservatives regard this issue facetiously, but increasing access to higher education is important. I was attempting to counter the allegation that the proposals in any way inhibit access. The facts speak for themselves, and the applications prove that the proposals have not inhibited access.
There may well be an increase in the number of students who choose to go into the second year of their study in Scottish universities. At present, the figure is 10 per cent., but it may go up. That is not a bad thing, and we should not regret it.
It was the Conservative Government who recognised the differences between the Scottish and English education systems, and enabled English students to start their education at second-year level. Last year, 10 per cent. of those who went to Scottish universities went to do a three-year degree, not an honours degree. They will be subject to the same rules for the three years of an ordinary degree as if they had gone to an English university.

Mr. Green: Does the hon. Lady recognise the difference between choice and coercion? The previous Government gave students the choice of going to university for three or four years, but this Government are coercing them by reducing the amount of money available. Does she not recognise that this is essentially a case of fairness? Different students will be paying different amounts in the same circumstances.

Ms Hodge: I tried to point out earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not understand me—that there are many anomalies and unfairnesses throughout the post-education system. If we were to accept the Opposition amendment tonight, we would create still further anomalies.
The hon. Member for Havant referred to European Union students. European legislation provides that students from European countries will have their fees subsidised in their fourth year. Let us be absolutely clear how many students we are talking about. In 1995–96, only 350 students in the Scottish university system came from European Union countries outside Britain. That anomaly is not so important that it compels the sort of anger and frustration that has been expressed by some Opposition Members.

Mr. Don Foster: rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Ms Hodge: I will give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To whom is the hon. Lady giving way?

Ms Hodge: I am giving way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Will she remind the House whether England is part of the European Union?

Ms Hodge: As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman—more than anyone else—should support the concept of subsidiarity, which is integral to the debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Things are getting out of hand. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor, should not walk across the Chamber while asking the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) to give way. He is out of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should stand in his place and ask the hon. Lady to give way.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I got carried away—I do not usually. As a socialist, how the blazes can the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) accept the expenditure of public money to subsidise students from France and Germany when the same subsidy is not provided for students from Bulgaria and places like that? Is the hon. Lady saying that, because there are only about 300 such students, it does not matter? As a supporter of people's rights, should she not be concerned that the Government are offering facilities to people from certain areas and not to those from the poorest countries in the world? As a socialist, should not the hon. Lady be ashamed of herself?

Ms Hodge: As a member of the new Labour party, and a warm supporter of the European project, I embrace the huge benefits that membership of the European Union has brought to the people of this country.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hodge: I must move on, as many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. However, I shall give way once more.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House when she said that there were 300 students from EU countries. The figure for 1995–96 is in fact 3,082.

Ms Hodge: I obtained my figures from the Library—I am not sure whether we are exchanging figures that were

obtained in different ways—and they show that 350 students from EU countries outside Britain were studying at Scottish universities in 1995–96.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Ms Hodge: I must continue, as I have taken a range of interventions, and the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber.
I turn to other issues that I believe are relevant to the debate. When most people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland think of Scottish universities, places such as Edinburgh and St. Andrews come to mind. However, many Scottish universities cater primarily for Scottish students. For example, Robert Gordon university derives only 3.5 per cent. of its student intake from outside Scotland, and Paisley university derives only 4 per cent. Most Scottish universities—except perhaps the more elite establishments in Scotland—cater primarily for Scottish students.
The Opposition may have identified an anomaly, but is it a priority for targeting resources? I argue strongly that it is not. I share the priorities of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for distributing additional resources. Any additional money—there will be even more when resource accounting gets under way and we treat loans under public expenditure rules—should be used to improve access for lone parents, mature students and people with disabilities.
Let us use the money to iron out other anomalies that I believe are more important. For example, part-time students are treated differently, and students in further education are treated in a totally unfair and discriminatory manner. Let us put that money to better use, so that we may create opportunities for the many, not the few.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: Before attempting to controvert the intellectual chicanery practised by various Government Members, I shall speak to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is ever involved in chicanery.

Mr. Gorrie: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I thought that the phrase might be allowed.
I shall speak to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 8 means that fees for the fourth year and subsequent years of study in all United Kingdom universities would be covered by grants. There would be a level playing field across the whole United Kingdom, as fees would be paid for only three years. Concentration on the Scottish anomaly has concealed the fact that many university courses in England continue for four or more years and that students enrolled in those courses will suffer under the present arrangements.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals estimates that it will cost £12 million a year to remove the fees or cover them by grants. That seems a modest amount to pay, to address that anomaly and assist the students enrolled in those courses, many of which are vital to the future of our economy. This is one anomaly, but there are many others. We are concentrating on the single anomaly in this amendment and we deal with other


anomalies in later amendments. I commend to the House our proposal, which would solve the problem in Scotland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) a hearing. Every hon. Member is entitled to a hearing. Far too many conversations are being conducted in the Chamber.

Mr. Gorrie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment No. 9 would address the Scottish anomaly by covering fourth-year fees in Scottish universities with grants. Different parties have tried to address that question from four different directions. In addition to our amendments, we endeavoured to address it by moving a motion for recommittal, which did not leave the starting blocks. We proposed that the clauses regarding Scotland be recommitted to a Scottish Standing Committee. Our amendment seeks to deal with the anomaly, and other parties' amendments deal with it satisfactorily in other ways. We shall be happy to support the Conservative amendment or any other amendments that are selected.
This is the most extraordinary mess that the Government have made. The sight of different Departments passing the buck from one to another and saying, "It wisnae me," "I'll not pay," and "It isn't my fault," is not enlivening.
The Government—or their latest spokesperson—argue that they are retaining equal access. In theory, there will be equal access to the most expensive seats at Covent Garden when it reopens, in that anyone will be able to go in, part with several hundred pounds and get the seat, but that is not equal access, as whether one can afford the ticket price enters into the equation.
The arguments made in Labour interventions and speeches so far are of the "angels dancing on the point of a pin" variety, but they have a new angle on the issue, which the mediaeval people did not. The area of residence of the angel dancing on the point of a pin was the crucial new issue. The arguments—

Mr. Ian Davidson: New Labour, new angle.

Mr. Gorrie: New Labour, new lunacy. The arguments are incredibly unconvincing.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: If this is as huge an issue as the hon. Gentleman implies, and if the amount of hot air generated means that the Government are in trouble, why is that not borne out by the statistics of applications by real people in England, Northern Ireland and Wales to universities in Scotland? Why is it not borne out by a plummet in applications? That is what we would expect if what he said bore a shred of a relationship to reality.

Mr. Gorrie: We are setting out a—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question. We are setting out a point of principle. If Labour Members cannot recognise a principle, that is their problem, not ours. We are looking

to the future. We want to establish a principle that will last. It is not a question of whether one year of students decides in a specific way, when the facts are not fully known. I ask Labour Members to imagine a scenario in which we were not doing this but, in a year or two, the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill to the effect that it would cost English students more than it would Scottish students to study in Scotland. My God, what an outcry there would be—"Wicked Scots nationalist discrimination!" Instead, the Labour party, whose duty it is to run the Union satisfactorily and fairly, is introducing this anomaly. It is blowing a hole in the concept of the Union and fairness throughout the country.

Mr. Wilson: I wonder whether the obvious solution would be to have the same system of school qualifications, the same entry qualifications and the same higher education system in England as in Scotland. Then there would be no anomalies. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is recommending?

Mr. Gorrie: No; I am not proposing that. I am proposing that there should be a level playing field and non-discrimination for entry to Scottish universities. For the sake of £2 million—what it has been estimated would be necessary to redress the anomaly—the Government are seriously damaging Scottish universities. They have enraged the students and the university community, which are very unhappy about the whole thing.

Mr. Byers: Oh dear.

Mr. Gorrie: "Oh dear" is not a very intelligent remark for Ministers to make if a large number of university principals are very unhappy with their policy.
Ministers are deliberately denigrating the Scottish four-year degree. On a previous occasion, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office referred to a "leisurely four-year degree". Ministers ignore the fact that, throughout Europe, broader and longer degrees are the norm. Scotland is more in tune than is England with most of continental Europe. The Government are much mistaken in undermining the Scottish four-year degree. The idea that people can go straight in at the start of the second year—

Caroline Flint: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, on a point of principle, the task should be to increase opportunities for students at school and in further education in Scotland to have access to university? Is not that the point of principle—increasing the number of students from Scotland who can apply to do the four-year degree course?

Mr. Gorrie: With due respect to the hon. Lady, that is not the issue. Scotland already has a better rate of people going on to university than England does. We shall support any measure to improve the participation of people in any part of Britain in higher and further education, and to improve their opportunities, but how one improves their opportunities by charging fees, I do not know.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the survey conducted by Scottish university students, approaching every head teacher in Scotland, of whom


68.5 per cent. felt that the percentage of their pupils entering higher education would fall as a result of the introduction of tuition fees and 70.4 per cent. felt that abolition of the maintenance grant would further reduce the percentage of their students entering higher education. If that is indeed the concern of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), it does not look as if these measures make much sense.

Mr. Gorrie: The Conservatives can speak for themselves on their policy on fees.
At present, about 10 per cent. of students coming from England, Northern Ireland and Wales go straight into the second year of a Scottish course. It is not an option in many courses and, according to my information, many people who start in the second year go back to the first year because they do not think that it would be sensible to continue, and they cannot cope. Only the top-quality entrants from England can go straight into the second year, and it is arguable whether it is beneficial for them, because they miss out on the breadth of the traditional Scottish degree.
The Government have got it entirely wrong, first, on the issue of equality throughout the Union, and secondly, in their extraordinarily consistent attack on the Scottish traditional four-year degree, which is very damaging for the future. I hope that the House will support whatever amendment it has to vote on to oppose these foolish policies.

Mr. John McAllion: I support new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), my colleagues and myself.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made what he described as a one-nation political speech—a one-Union political speech, if you like—but I warn him that taking a Unionist line will not work with me. I certainly will not support amendment No. 102, which is a Tory amendment tabled in his name. I have been 11 years in the House, and so far I have managed never to support the Tories in any decision; I will not support them now.
I say to Ministers, however, that neither will I vote against amendment No. 102. In an ideal world, I would have hoped that new clause 3 would be selected and voted on, and if it were voted on, I would vote for it, because it is about a serious, important issue, which Ministers should take seriously—the issue of fairness and not discriminating against people because they happen to live in a different part of this island from other people. That is the basic principle.
People who attend the same university and do the same four-year degree course should be treated exactly the same. There is no way round that basic, simple argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) says that access for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students to Scottish universities remains the same as it did before; it does not. A student from England, Wales or Northern Ireland must find an extra £1,000 in tuition fees if they want to take a course at a Scottish university. I realise that £1,000 here or there does not matter to a millionaire, but to many people £1,000 is a lot of money. It may make all the difference when they are deciding whether to stay in England, Northern Ireland or Wales or go to university in Scotland.
Many of my hon. Friends have argued that it is possible to jump into the second year if one has an A-level qualification instead of a higher, as they have in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking conceded that, at the moment, only 10 per cent. of students from the rest of the United Kingdom go straight into the second year of courses in Scottish universities. In fact, at a briefing given to Members of Parliament from Dundee by the local universities—Dundee university and Abertay university—it was made clear that most students coming from England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not go straight into the second year, and would not be allowed to do so because of the type of course on offer. Accountancy was mentioned. Students from England will not be allowed to go into the second year of that course at Dundee university. Of course, we can score debating points across the Chamber, but the problem is real for real students in the real world. We must take it on board when the policy that we are advocating has discriminatory implications and damages the interests of students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
There is also a Scottish perspective to the argument. I was born and raised in Glasgow, but I have spent most of my life living in Dundee. I know that there are more universities in Scotland than just Edinburgh and St. Andrews. Dundee university and Abertay university in Dundee—some of my hon. Friends may never have heard of it—have high proportions of students from elsewhere in the UK. At Dundee university, 30 per cent. of the intake consists of non-Scottish students, with 14 per cent. coming from Northern Ireland. If we consider particular disciplines at the university—for example, medicine—60 per cent. of the students on those courses are non-Scottish students.
The universities believe that the measure is bound to have an impact on the applications that they will receive and the number of students coming into the universities. The preliminary figures produced by the universities last November showed that in the case of Dundee, the number of applications was down by 17.5 per cent. At Abertay—

Ms Hodge: That is ridiculous.

Mr. McAllion: The principals of those universities have given those figures to the Members of Parliament who represent them. My hon. Friend may think that the argument is ridiculous, but those are the facts and that is the truth.

Ms Hodge: I said that that was ridiculous because November was not the last date for applications to universities. Can my hon. Friend say whether applications to Dundee university are down this year? Are applications from students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland down?

Mr. McAllion: If my hon. Friend had taken the trouble to read a Scottish newspaper last week, she would have seen a huge article reporting a speech made by Professor Bernard King, the principal of Abertay university, who was speaking about the likely effect of the extra £1,000 tuition fee on applications to his university. His words were that that would have a devastating effect. He believed that the number of students in universities across Scotland would be down by as much as 25 per cent. as a direct result of the policy. He went on to argue that, if the


problem was not addressed, the reduction in the number of students attending Scottish universities would in the long term lead to a reduction in the number of universities across Scotland.
That is a man who knows what he is talking about. He is not an elected politician who does a wee bit here and a wee bit there about higher education. He has spent his life in higher education and he knows the likely impact of the changes on higher education in Scotland. He is alarmed, and if he is alarmed, I am alarmed and I suggest that my hon. Friends should also be alarmed. They should pay no attention to the smoothing of the figures. If we put barriers in the way of people going to university, we cannot say that that will have no effect.
I can trade soundbites with the best of us. I also want access to university to be for the many, not for the few. I suggest to my hon. Friends, however, that anything that puts a barrier in the way of students coming to Scottish universities will not encourage access for the many.

Mr. Wilson: Any university that was suffering a reduction in applications from elsewhere in the United Kingdom could take more students from less well-off backgrounds because, of course, no matter where in the United Kingdom they come from, they will not have to pay tuition fees.

Mr. McAllion: There is a danger in that. My hon. Friend highlights another anomaly. In Dundee, not only do we have two universities, but we have a college of further education, Dundee college, which has 10,000 or 11,000 students. If we lose students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the criteria for admission to Abertay and Dundee universities will be dropped. Consequently, many of the students who would have gone to Dundee college will go to one of those universities, and Dundee college will then be in trouble. Already it has insufficient funds to keep all the teachers teaching all the time.
There is a knock-on effect all the way down the chain. I plead with my hon. Friends. No doubt the decision was originally based on public spending considerations, but it has grave implications. It would not cost a great deal of money to restore the principle that is at the heart of new clause 3. That would go down very well with people in Scotland if we could find the money to do something about it. We have the money, because there are surpluses around, as everyone is saying. We do not need to adopt such a policy and we should not try to defend it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I have noted his interventions regarding European Union students. He has made his point about EU students, and the amendment deals with UK students. I would not want him to make another European speech.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am always grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of course I shall stick absolutely to the rules.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an excellent speech. He was trying to tell us that we should stop playing at politics and throwing around silly figures and estimates, and realise that there is a major problem.
We all know from experience that we cannot tell the impact of anything until it happens. Instead of discussing estimates given by university professors whom we can largely judge as sensible, or soundbites from Ministers that can be disregarded, let us wait and see what happens. We should ask ourselves, first, whether the policy can work; secondly, whether it is just; and thirdly, what impact it will have on Scottish universities.
7.45 pm
I have three children. One went to St. Andrews university, where 40 per cent. of the students came from Scotland, 40 per cent. from the rest of the UK and 20 per cent. from abroad. My daughter is at present at Durham university. Before hon. Members start making political points, I hope that they will think about my daughter. Because I am a wealthy Member of Parliament, I send her a cheque every month. I hope that she will emerge with a good degree and with no debts. However, if I were an unemployed bricklayer, she would probably leave university—if the Bill were enacted—with a debt of £10,000. Let us forget the idea that we are making provision to help the poor. should look at the facts, not the soundbites.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. First, if the proposal is just, what is the definition of a Scottish student? I came from Scotland, went to a Scottish university, went down to England looking for a job and found one. If someone is temporarily residing in Scotland before starting university, having his previous home in Birmingham, is he a Scot or is he English? If somebody has been to Scottish schools and got a Scottish education and Scottish higher leaving certificates—

Ms Hodge: indicated dissent.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Lady should not shake her head, as this is a real situation. If that person then moves to Birmingham, is he an English resident? The first thing that the Minister should say in his reply is how he will define a Scottish applicant, as opposed to an applicant from England. We know that people move around a great deal. If someone has a Scottish school education and then moves to England, how can the definitions be reasonable or practical?
Secondly, I shall not raise the European issue but, bearing it in mind that the school education in Italy and France is fundamentally different, as the Minister well knows, why should those students get the same £1,000 off their fees, compared with other students coming from Canada, where school education tends to be shorter, or from Australia, where it is in between, or from Bulgaria, where I do not know the situation?
Can the Minister explain why there should be a block exemption for students from the European Union? Can he tell us what will happen in the case of South American countries? French Guyana is an overseas territory of France, but British Guyana is not covered by the measure.
Thirdly, what will be the impact on applications? I know that my son, who went to St. Andrews, was rather worried about going there because it meant an extra year of studying. He did not particularly want to do that, but the advantages of going to St. Andrews were considerable for him, so he decided to do it. Would it not be ridiculous if he had had the disadvantage of the extra year educationally as well as an extra £1,000 fee?
The fourth factor that the Government must bear in mind is that there are variations in the length of courses in Scottish and English universities. At St. Andrews, in some instances, students can apply for three-year courses. That is not possible at other Scottish universities. At Aberdeen university—I know that this applies to two courses at Dundee university—it is not possible to reduce the length of courses.
Finally, I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that they are introducing a new anomaly in the funding of education. That is wrong, especially when the Labour party did not say that it would do such a thing before it came to power.
I had the pleasure this afternoon of speaking to several students from St. Andrews. I spoke to others who came from Dundee and elsewhere. They happened to recognise me, although I have been away from Scotland for a long time. They were concerned. Indeed, they were alarmed. They thought that it was fundamentally wrong to introduce a measure which for the first time would bring in discrimination.
I hope that the Minister will tell students—this is not a laughing matter—how he defines whether an applicant comes from Scotland. For example, one of my children could decide to move in with an aunt, perhaps in May, and apply to go to a Scottish university. That child could move away from home for that purpose and say that his or her home had changed for that purpose. Would that child have the Scottish advantage? On the other hand, someone could move down to England temporarily. Does that person become English? The moment we introduce differentiations for Scottish nationals or English nationals, we are bringing something into our law that is fundamentally wrong.
As I have said before, the whole business is filthy, foul and cruel. I accept that other Governments might have done something similar. If they had, however, I fancy that there would have been marching in the streets. The Government's proposal, if enacted, will hit the poorest families hardest of all.
My children and others with parents on higher incomes will emerge without any debt whatever. Although the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is shaking her head, I ask her to think about these matters. My daughter will leave university without any debt. If I were on a low income, she would leave with a debt of £10,000, and some day would have to repay it. As for charges and the fees that we were discussing, those on low incomes would not pay them. However, there is still the horrible business of paying back the debt for the money that is borrowed for a university course.
Something big has happened, and it is wrong. The hon. Member for Barking should be well aware that no indication was given to students that this would happen. The Government have done something fundamentally wrong. They should say at least that they will retain the principle that the same rules will apply throughout the United Kingdom, whether someone's residence is classified as being in Scotland or England.

Dr. George Turner: I confess that I learned the differences between Scottish and English education at an early age: the son of Scots parents, and with a working mother, I was sent for the English school holidays to Scotland, where, to get me out of the way and

out of trouble, my relatives put me into school. The school holidays were different, of course. Having had cousins who went through the Scottish system doing their highers and four-year degree courses, and having myself followed the traditional English route—A-levels and a three-year degree course—I am well aware of the distinctive pattern of education in Scotland.
Before coming to this place, I worked for almost 30 years in higher education. I am disappointed that the House has not addressed the real issues. Admission to education—along with fees and the suitability of candidates—relates to educational background and experience and not to where people are resident. Over my years in higher education I dealt with exchange courses. Our best universities are international, and the university of East Anglia numbers among them. Within a three-year programme, we had difficulty in ensuring that exchanges could take place—although there were many four-year courses at English universities offering European exchanges, which recognised language difficulties. We must understand that students from elsewhere in Europe who come here as part of their course have similar problems.
In America, with no language differences, there were still grave problems in finding courses—as there would be for students moving between England and Scotland. The reason for that is that the educational system is different—salthough there are more similarities with the system in the United States, where I worked for a few years, than between the systems in Scotland and England.
As soon as we have differences in schooling and educational systems, anomalies in admission policies may arise. I know that many English universities would dearly have loved the funding to enable them to move to a four-year degree course for those who had completed an A-level course, but I know—

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does not the argument revolve round the fact that the Government are unwilling to fund four-year courses in the rest of the United Kingdom? As was said in Committee, there are many courses, such as language courses, where four years would be appropriate. The anomaly arises because of the Government's unwillingness to fund four-year courses.

Dr. Turner: With respect, the Government do fund four-year courses where appropriate. The question that must be addressed is whether residence is the appropriate qualification. The first part of my argument is that residence is not appropriate. What is appropriate is educational background and the totality of that education.
I know that there are strains on English universities in finding matching courses that can be made available to American students on exchange. That is because the Americans have a four-year system. If universities that wish to attract international students do not look to the structure of their courses, they will have difficulty in attracting them.
What are our priorities when it comes to the funding that is available for education? That is the real question for the Government to take on board. Despite the mantra of my party, I know that funding will be limited during this Parliament and the next. I know that some of my colleagues at the university of East Anglia will regret me


saying that we do not have the luxury of funding to enable us to move from the standard English three-year degree course to one of four years. The students and the teachers might like the idea, but it is not our priority.
As an admissions tutor, I am aware of the problems that arise when there are different education systems within the same country. There is just as great a difference between the Scottish system of education and the English system of A-levels as there is for those students who chose to leave school at 16 to take the further education route. If a student takes the FE route in England through the ordinary national certificate and the higher national certificate, he may have more years of education than the student beginning a three-year degree course. That was certainly the case with the engineering course with which I was involved. The argument was that such students should be able to move into their second year at the English university. In some instances, with higher national diploma students, it was argued that they should be able to move into the third year. If the education system is to be efficient, it is necessary to structure courses for students.
I do not know whether it is because of ignorance or because there is little else about which to argue in terms of policy, but I feel that the House is missing the main point. That can certainly be said in relation to the new clauses. We have two distinctive schooling systems and transferring between them is not the same as moving between them. Of course consideration should be given to whether such transfer or movement should be encouraged financially. Much has been made of the £1,000 involved.
Any student who choose to extend the time that he spends in education by embarking on a four-year course after taking English A-levels could have two good reasons for doing so. One reason is that he has not planned his academic future carefully enough, early enough. It is a common fault, and understandable in the context of young people; such students continue to suffer from that, in England as well as if they wish to transfer elsewhere. Secondly, if someone else is paying, it is very nice to have a year longer to get to the same end point. There is only a modest discouragement because the extra £1,000 is less than 10 per cent. of the actual cost that is being met. The main contribution that young or middle-aged people make is the extra year that they devote to study.

Dr. Lynne Jones: When my hon. Friend talks about the luxury of an additional year in education, should he compare that with income forgone? The Minister suggested that Scottish universities might go forward by attracting more students from low-income backgrounds. Surely he should recognise that those students would have to pay their maintenance grant back, in the form of loans. Under current arrangements, they pay back £6,000 or £7,000, which will double under the new arrangements. Is my hon. Friend concerned about that?

8 pm

Dr. Turner: For the moment, I am concerned to stick to the amendments. I understand that there will be a wider debate on some of the principles later.
The principle that a person taking a year longer pays a £1,000 contribution towards that is not new. Students in England have done that, as have students who have

moved. Students from Europe who I have known have usually wanted to come in and take the shortest route: they wanted to argue themselves into the latest year in the course that they could, not necessarily the earliest, because they wanted to diminish the maintenance that they paid—which I understand they will continue to pay.

Mr. Beith: I should like to compare notes with the hon. Gentleman, as someone whom did the same job as him—dealing with students applying to university. Does he not think it strange that an admissions tutor would say to students from Scotland or from other countries in Europe, "You should start in the first year because your education so far is such that that is the right place to start," while being unable to come to that conclusion for an English student without also saying, "It will cost you an extra £1,000"?

Dr. Turner: Never having dealt with these matters in Scotland, I cannot speak for what happens in that system. I dealt with students who came in from further education, and I understood a system whereby a person who had spent a further year in education could usually expect to go into the degree programme at a more advanced stage. As a county councillor, I knew that such students would not have got the grant or had their place paid for for the full three years.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend is missing a particular point about the typical conduct of students fresh into the first year at universities in Scotland or anywhere else. Such students would not necessarily plan to do a four-year honours course and might have to enjoy success to realise that they were able to do a four-year course. They might come in planning to do three years, and then wish to go on for a fourth, but if they happen to come from any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland, they will have to pay the extra £1,000. That is unfair.

Dr. Turner: I am afraid that I must disagree. There are different educational systems and we have to try to match them. The judgment has to be an academic one which, in general, depends on the number of years that a student has spent studying.
We cannot afford to let education be seen to be any less efficient than it has become in recent years. There may be effects from cuts in education which will mean that we have to improve quality, but we must maintain the efficiency of the system. Conservative Members are ignoring that, and they will not have my support.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that one of the problems is that England cannot move from a three-year degree to the more usual four-year degree because the Government will not provide the funding. They are also not funding the resources to end the discrimination against English and other students, which is a giveaway of the real reasons for the debate: education is now resource-driven rather than driven by education needs or reasons.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 would delay the Bill's implementation in Scotland until the new Scottish Parliament is set up. The education system in Scotland and attitudes towards education differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is widely recognised


and has been mentioned several times in the debate. Even the Government have admitted that difference in attitude. The Scottish Office response to the Garrick report states:
the existence of the Scottish Committee stems from the important and distinctive nature of the Scottish higher education system.
The Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said in Committee:
The Scottish education system differs from that elsewhere in the United Kingdom—not just at higher education level, but at school level."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 21 April 1998; c. 150.]
Underlying the differences in the system are different attitudes and principles. For example, a Scottish education offers a breadth of learning: school pupils are able to study a wide range of subject at a high level, and university students take a broad-based four-year degree. In respect of funding, it has been possible for centuries for people in Scotland from the poorest backgrounds to enjoy the best education, if they have the ability.
The Bill will not only affect the Scottish education system, but will seriously undermine the principles on which it is built. It is incredible, therefore, that not a single Scottish constituency Member of Parliament served on the Standing Committee. The Scottish National party certainly sought representation, but was denied it. The Liberal Democrats chose not to give a seat to a Scottish Member, and the Conservatives could not have done so, even if they had wanted to. The Government filled their 14 seats with English and Welsh MPs, showing either that Scottish Labour MPs were not interested or that they could not be trusted to toe the party line. The truth of that will be seen in the Lobby.
The Government initiated legislation giving the Scottish Parliament powers to administer all levels of Scottish education, but the same Government are forcing through changes in Scottish education, even though the new Parliament will be in place in less than a year. It would be an abuse of power for the Government to force the Bill on the Scottish people when it has not been properly debated or scrutinised by their elected representatives, as it would most certainly be in the new Scottish Parliament. To use the Prime Minister's words, it would be an irresponsible act.
Given the huge administrative cost of making two fundamental changes to student funding arrangements in a short period, it would be wise to wait for the Scottish Parliament to pass such a Bill.

Sir Robert Smith: Might not the Minister have welcomed another benefit: the chance to make sure that the computer is finally working at the Student Awards Agency for Scotland? The nightmare that I foresee is that it will not only not manage to administer a system that it has operated for years but will be unable to cope, within the space of a few months, with a new system and the means-testing of parents from Greece, Germany and Denmark.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The problems of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland are only a starter—a preview of the horrors of 2000.
Amendment No. 2 would have similar effect to amendment No. 102. It would guarantee equity in payment of tuition fees for all students at higher education

institutions in Scotland, regardless of United Kingdom domicile. That was the subject of my Adjournment debate on 15 January. As the Bill stands, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland applicants to Scottish universities will be expected to pay £1,000 more than Scottish or European Union students for the same course, even though they come from exactly the same background.

Mr. Coaker: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie)? If the issue is so huge—he has returned to it—why does not what is happening outside the House reflect what he is saying? Applications have not been affected in the way that his argument suggests.

Mr. Welsh: That is not true. Applications at many universities are down, but we should remember that there is a difference between applying and taking a course. The hon. Gentleman should think beyond the present to one, two, three or 10 years from now. The Bill will not only lumber students and their families with massive debt but will have a ripple-back effect on the Scottish education system. Those major problems are being forced on Scotland. The Scottish Parliament is the best place to debate those issues so that the people of Scotland can decide what educational provision they want and what choices they wish to make, rather than have a fait accompli visited upon them.
To solve the English-Welsh-Northern Ireland anomaly would cost only £1.5 million for students from England, £45,000 for students from Wales, and £500,000 for students from Northern Ireland—a total of £2 million. That is a small sum compared with the overall budget available to the offices governing those countries, yet it would stop the anomaly, get rid of the discrimination and solve the problem. It would not take much, and the Government could easily do it if it were a priority.
The Government's policy is discriminatory. It will deter English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students from coming to Scotland. The Minister will no doubt quote figures to show, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) attempted to do, that overall applications have not been affected. However, some Scottish universities, such as Dundee and Abertay, have seen a substantial drop in applications, particularly from Northern Ireland.
The final result of the Government's policy will not be known until the autumn, when the important admissions figures will be released. We shall then all see the effect of what is happening. Any drop in the number of students from other parts of the United Kingdom will force Scottish institutions to downsize their diverse range of courses. There is also the danger that Scottish universities may be forced to consider abandoning the traditional four-year honours degree, replacing it with a three-year course to compete on a level playing field to attract non-Scottish UK students. The effects of that will ripple back through the whole system into secondary schools, and so on. The matter should have been thought through much more thoroughly. That could and should be done within the Scottish Parliament—not in this institution, where Scotland was not even represented in Committee.
The Government's proposal will also have a negative effect on the Scottish economy, causing a reduction in the £210 million spent each year in Scotland by students from


other parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have given two reasons for not removing the anomaly, and neither is good enough. First, they argue that Scottish students will have had one less year of school education than English, Welsh or Northern Irish students, and are therefore entitled to one more year of free higher education. That is merely a convenient excuse, which is full of flaws. For example, Scottish students may have repeated years at school, but they will not be forced to pay the fourth-year fees. Several European Union countries offer free school education for 14 years or more, but students from those countries will be exempt from fourth-year fees. However, students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland who left school at 16 and who have done an access course will have to pay fees for all four years. People have been calling that an anomaly; it certainly is, and it is certainly unfair.
That is not the real reason for the Government's attitude. The real reason why they are unwilling to resolve the anomaly is that they are afraid of the implications in other parts of the United Kingdom. Students on longer courses in England will think it unfair that they are expected to pay fourth-year fees whereas students in Scotland are not; a maximum sum of £3,000 will be applied. The Department for Education and Employment could find a solution to that problem to satisfy English, Welsh and Northern Irish students—it could, if it wanted to.
It is typical of this Government that they are willing to allow universities in faraway Scotland to pay the price for their flawed policies rather than face criticism closer to London. The only solution that the Government have proposed to help ease the problem is that Scottish institutions should give English, Welsh and Northern Irish students direct entry into the second year of a four-year course. However, only 7 per cent. of non-Scottish UK students currently receive direct entry into the second year of undergraduate courses at Scottish universities. The Government are happy to encourage people to go directly into the second year, whether they are A-level students, Scottish students with a certificate of sixth-year studies or, in the future—if it comes to pass—holders of advanced highers. The first year of a four-year degree is foundational and often academically necessary. Direct entry into the second year is not possible in all courses, nor is it advisable for educational reasons.
Universities are being forced to redesign courses to suit second-year entrants for financial, not academic, reasons. The Government's flawed policy is causing the erosion of the original intention of the broad-based degree, which is gaining admiration and popularity in other countries. University is not, and should not be, simply a case of rushing people through and giving a certificate at the end. It is a learning process, which takes time.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Why do so few students choose to enter the second year of a course? Is it because they are discouraged by the universities, or because they choose not to enter the second year?

Mr. Welsh: Funnily enough, more Scottish students than English choose to go directly into the second year. The question is too complex for me to answer in the short time available to me, but it is interesting.
8.15 pm
The English three-year honours system, rather than the Scottish four-year honours degree, is the exception. My argument is based on educational grounds. Scotland has something that is worth protecting, defending and improving. In the long run, the Government's flawed policy will act as a deterrent. It will not deter access, except in the sense that people will not wish to pay the extra money and have the extra debt, and will not choose to come to Scottish universities. If that happens, a smaller range of courses will be available in Scottish universities. The problems will be seen over the coming decades because the policy is flawed.
Our amendments would protect the four-year honours degree and ensure equity for everyone studying at Scottish universities. That is how it should be.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I wish to speak briefly in support of new clause 3, which seeks to address the anomaly referred to by other hon. Members.
Under the Government proposals, a new West Lothian question has arisen—namely: why should a student from Blackburn in Lancashire doing a four-year honours course at Edinburgh university have to pay £4,000, whereas a student from Blackburn in West Lothian pays only £3,000? The anomaly is complicated even further under European Union legislation: why should a student from Belfast have to pay £1,000 more than a student from Dublin? The whole matter is patently unjust, and unless the Government take action to eradicate the injustice, they may face a court action in the European Court of Justice. I appeal to the Government to see reason. That is the basic case for new clause 3—it is a plea for justice.
I take what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said about the available evidence regarding applications—I emphasise the word "applications" rather than admissions. However, it is early days yet and it would be wrong to jump to conclusions simply based on the application statistics at this stage. Well-articulated fears have been expressed by vice-chancellors and principals of almost all the Scottish universities about the damaging effect of the proposals and the fact that they will discourage students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland from going to Scottish universities. In the long term, that could undermine the Scottish four-year honours degree, which has been part of the tradition of our broad-based Scottish education.
Some hon. Members have said that some students from England and Wales with A-levels can go straight into the second year of a degree course. That may be true for some courses and for some students, but it is certainly not universally applicable.
I have heard at least one Minister say that students from England and Wales who opt to go to a Scottish university are already paying more anyway because they are having to pay maintenance for four years rather than the three years at an English university. That seems rather weak logic. It is almost like saying that students who already pay more should therefore pay even more. The extra £1,000 could be the last straw for potential students which dissuades them from opting for a Scottish university.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend said a couple of minutes ago that such an anomaly could be referred to the


European Court of Justice. I am not so sure about that, but might it not create a very lively debate at the very first meeting of the Council of the Isles?

Mr. Canavan: It could, indeed. I am not a lawyer so I do not know the strength of such a case going to the European Court of Justice, although I think that outrage will be expressed by all parties in a debate on education in the Council of the Isles.
I made some effort to find out an estimate of costs involved by tabling some written answers, which were answered on Friday, and for which I am grateful to the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. He was not, however, very revealing in his first answer. I asked:
what is the estimated total of tuition fees which will be payable in the final year of four years honours courses at Scottish universities and colleges by United Kingdom students from outside Scotland.
He replied:
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) on Monday 24 November 1997".— [Official Report, 5 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 383.]
I looked with great anticipation for the appropriate extract in Hansard. In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, the Minister said:
no specific estimate of the likely average fee per student for those students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland studying in Scotland is available."—[Official Report, 24 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 422.]
I know that, sometimes, figures are not the strongest points of some Education Ministers, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry was educated at a Scottish university, so we expect better.
The Minister did eventually give me some figures, when I asked:
how many United Kingdom students from outside Scotland are in the final year of four-year honours degree courses at Scottish universities or colleges."— [Official Report, 5 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 383.]
Although his reply did not exactly answer my question, he said that, last year, there was a total of 3,543 non-Scottish UK honours graduates from Scottish higher education institutions who had completed four or more years study.
Even if all those 3,543 students were paying the full fee of £1,000, the maximum cost to the Government would be just over £3.5 million. If we assume that one third will be exempt from paying fees, one third will pay a partial fee and only one third will pay the full fee, the total estimated cost would probably be less than £2 million. I should be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to confirm that, or give some rough estimate. That £2 million would or could be shared between the Department for Education and Employment, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office. Although the cost is not astronomical, the Government would generate much good will towards Scottish universities and colleges if they were to eradicate the unfair anomaly. I therefore plead with the Minister to do so.

Mr. Beith: I should like to stress to the Minister the sense of injustice with which this matter is viewed in Berwick-upon-Tweed, where the nearest two universities are in Scotland and there is a long tradition of people doing four-year courses at Scottish universities, including Aberdeen, and how people will sense the anomalies.
There is a fairly considerable movement of people and pupils across the border in and around Berwick. Quite a number of pupils complete their education in England but have a domicile in Scotland. All the Minister's arguments that, since students have had a year less full-time education in Scotland they are entitled to the full four years of education, do not apply in such cases. Such students will have completed their English education to the end of the A-level year, and will still be entitled to four years of a Scottish degree course because they live on the Scottish side of the border. On the other hand, the majority in England will have to pay the extra £1,000 in order to go to a university in Scotland. That is regarded as a very great injustice.
The injustice is compounded when it becomes clear that, by comparison with a student from Dublin, Bavaria or Sicily, the Berwick student will have to pay £1,000 more. The Minister still has not answered the argument that people in Berwick-upon-Tweed have long believed that they are in the European Union. They are entitled to parity of treatment in the EU as much as those who come to the United Kingdom from any other part of Europe.
The sense of annoyance, and even outrage, is very strong among pupils, teachers and parents in whose families there is a tradition either of going to university in Scotland or of going across the border and therefore having been in and out of both education systems. The anomaly is absurd. It is not a matter of removing some old anomaly. The Government have created a new one and I shall vote for any amendment that is designed to prevent them from doing so.

Mr. Wilson: I should like to pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We are not talking about an anomaly, as I shall explain. We are talking about two different education systems. Anyone trying to square that circle must arrive at the conclusion that the only way in which to have an internal education system free of such anomalies is to have a unitary system. I doubt very much whether the nationalists or the Liberal Democrats are proposing that. Indeed, as a product of the Scottish education system, I would very strongly oppose that.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the nationalists because that will not take much time. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) proposed that all such matters should be put back for the consideration of the Scottish Parliament. If I wanted to be uncharitable and to put egg on the hon. Gentleman's face, I might accept the proposal. But I am an humane man, so I shall spare the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment.
The result of the proposal would be to deny Scottish universities the additional funding that these changes will bring, deny Scottish students access to the much more sympathetic loans regime that the legislation will introduce, and deny Scottish mature students the improved arrangements that have been announced today. Of course, by extension, the proposal would deny Scottish part-time students from less well-off backgrounds the abolition of tuition fees that we have announced in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to face his electorate to tell them that he has wiped out all of that in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom, I should perhaps facilitate it.
One wonders why the hon. Member for Angus wants to postpone all the matters for the consideration of the Scottish Parliament. The implication is that here is a


Braveheart figure who cannot wait for the Scottish Parliament in order to abolish everything and introduce what he has espoused in recent months. It is therefore with interest that we look at the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee two weeks ago, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) asked the hon. Member for Angus:
Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his peroration, will he say whether he is committing his party to abolish loans and reintroduce grants? If so, at what level? Is he committing his party to unfreeze bursaries and, if so, at what level will they be restored?
The Braveheart figure replied:
We will make good, as far as we can within the limit of resources, given the mistakes of the present Labour Government.
Under repeated pressure, the hon. Gentleman admitted that he and his party have reneged on all their rhetoric to such an extent that the National Union of Students accused them of betrayal.

Mr. Welsh: All the hon. Gentleman's vitriol betrays his lack of policy and of faith in Scottish democracy. Such matters should be considered by the Scottish Parliament. The decisions should be taken in the Scottish interest. No amount of waffle, vitriol or attacks will disguise the fact that I am against tuition fees and the Minister is in favour of them.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, it is easy to be against bad weather and all sorts of things. Unless one is going to legislate on a matter, such comments are completely meaningless. Given the chance, the hon. Gentleman has again failed to say that his party would reverse the legislation. As he bravely said:
We will make good, as far as we can within the limit of resources, given the mistakes"—
as he sees them—
of the present Labour Government."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 20 May 1998; c. 22.]
The grand old Duke of Banff has led his men to the top of the hill and marched them down again—without a shot being fired in anger.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wilson: No, we must move on to serious matters.
I have heard the word "anomaly" used repeatedly tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "From Labour Members."] Yes, from all over the place. I understand why some of my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—talk about anomalies. I understand why the Liberal Democrats talk about anomalies. I understand why the press talk about anomalies. However, I am astonished that the Scottish National party describes the Scottish education system as an anomaly.
We are talking not about anomalies, but about two different education systems within one state. No amount of casuistry or complaining about anomalies can make them fit perfectly. We have two different systems. We have two different school qualification systems. We have two different university admissions systems. We have two

different higher education systems in these universities, conferring different degrees in Scotland and other parts of the UK.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I would like to throw my hon. Friend the Minister a Mackinlay and stand the argument on its head. I accept the difference between the two education systems, but there is a strong argument in England that we ought to broaden the A-level system—for obvious reasons—which would put pressure on universities to run four-year courses. If that is followed through—many of us are in favour of it—will the education team grant an extra £1,000 for those deserving it within the new English system?

Mr. Wilson: That is an interesting debate within the English education system for which, I am pleased to say, I am not responsible.
Let me turn that around, as that matter relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who complained that the four-year degree in Scotland was being perniciously removed. There is much talk about the tradition of the four-year degree. How long does it take to make a tradition? When I attended university in Scotland, about 30 per cent. of students in Scotland took four-year honours degrees and 70 per cent. took three-year degrees. These figures have now been transposed, for reasons which are not entirely educational.
For some people, three-year degrees are right, and they are wasting their time doing six years at school and four years at university. I do not accept the idea that to maintain some bogus tradition, it is inherently better to spend 10 years at that stage of one's life in education than nine or eight years. What is best for the individual is what is best for education and this country.

Sir Robert Smith: The Minister seems to forget that in his desire to force people through more quickly, he wants to take away the first year at university. The tradition from which he came involved students starting on a level playing field in their first year, and it is far more important to keep the breadth at the beginning. How far people go through university—and how they come out and what experiences they choose to take with them—is a debate for another day, but forcing people to accelerate their education at the beginning of university is a mistake.

Mr. Wilson: Which is precisely why we are not forcing anyone to do anything. We are giving them choice. At present, around 10 per cent. of students from England choose to go into second year at Scottish universities in that relatively small number of cases where it is both an appropriate course and they hold appropriate A-levels. In exactly the same way when the advanced highers come on stream, I will not say that any Scottish school leaver should spend six years at school obtaining advanced highers and then—to maintain a tradition—must do another four years at university to get an honours degree.
For many, it is better to do that in eight or nine years, rather than ten years. We should think of the interests of students, rather than maintaining the financial arrangements which are dear to the heart of some higher education institutions.

Dr. Godman: As one of the few Members of this House who has taught in a Scottish university, I agree


with what my hon. Friend says about the distinctiveness of our educational system, which I would not wish to change. Does he agree that our Scottish universities are enriched by encouraging youngsters—both as undergraduate and graduate students—to come to them from other points of the compass within the UK?

Mr. Wilson: Of course they are, but there is a wide range of proportions in Scottish universities; from 3 per cent. of students from England at Robert Gordon or 4 per cent. at Paisley, to between 45 and 48 per cent. at St. Andrews or Edinburgh. I do not believe that it is inherently better to have between 45 and 48 per cent. of students from England than it is to have a wider spread and to have students from a wider range of social backgrounds.
St. Andrews and Edinburgh are maintaining not only that they want students from England but, by definition—a point I made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—that they want students who will be liable for full fees. In other words, they want students from the upper range of the social classes—the ones who pay fees. If they felt that there was a shortage of students coming from England, they could resolve that problem instantly—if they see it as a problem—by taking more people who would not be liable for fees, and who thereby come from different social classes from those who are, perhaps, more accustomed to the cloisters of St. Andrews. Let us have a wider mix of students at all universities, but let us not hide behind the fallacy that the Opposition's case is in any way internationalist—it certainly is not.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister confirm that the science departments of international repute at the university of Edinburgh are not concerned about the social class of their students?

Mr. Wilson: I will indeed, but they are concerned with getting more money into the university to maintain that international excellence. That is why university principals support what we are doing in terms of university funding, which will bring up to £140 million extra each year into the Scottish universities. The weakness of the Opposition parties is that we say exactly where Scottish higher and further education can get £140 million a year, but by prevaricating on the changes in student funding, they cannot say where that £140 million is coming from.
I grant this to the Tories. For many reasons which had nothing to do with education—and had a lot to do with very high unemployment—they were good at piling numbers through the gates of our higher education institutions. However, the money did not follow. We now have a system that delivers high numbers of students to higher education, but which is underfunded, creaking at the seams and needs the infusion of new money which only the Labour Government are proposing to provide.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in allocating funding to universities, the Government will not take into account the proportion of students who pay the fees, as opposed to those from lower-income backgrounds who will not pay the fees?

Mr. Wilson: The way to address that is for universities to go out and promote wider access to university, as we

are doing in Scotland. On 1 May, we had a marvellous conference in Glasgow to discuss widening access and we have put serious money into the support of access programmes, run by universities, which go out into non-traditional areas to attract students into higher education.
It makes me angry when I hear people speaking from a supposedly radical political perspective, who defend a funding system which, to this day, delivers only 11 per cent. of students from lower-income groups, as opposed to 80 per cent. from higher-income groups, into higher education. If that is some sort of golden age which we are supposed to defend, count me out. When I went to a Scottish university, I was the one out of 14 Scottish school leavers who went to university. I have been acutely aware all my life that many of those 13 who did not go to university were every bit as well equipped to benefit from it as I was. The reality, which we cannot disguise from ourselves, is that, under the present system, almost 50 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland go to university despite—or perhaps because of—the loans system. What determines whether people go to university is not the theory of a funding system, but access to resources when they go through higher education. That is what we shall maintain and improve upon.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister saying that the document published by the university of St. Andrews—which shows that, as a result of the Government's proposals, the average student could be £3,000 worse off and the poorer student could be £5,400 worse off—is utter nonsense? Does he accept as a straight fact that, as a result of the proposals, poor students will be much worse off than those who come from higher-income families? He must know that that is true.

Mr. Wilson: Even the hon. Gentleman does not believe that a Government can, even if they wanted to, remove all society's inequities through a higher education Bill. He supported a Government who introduced student loans, which I have to accept led to an increase in applications to university. I have to recognise that the effect of student loans has been to give students money when they need it, which is when they are going through university.
We should all have a common purpose in telling students the truth, so that people are not deterred from applying to universities because of false information. Under the current system, which was introduced by the Tories, a graduate who earns £17,000 a year repays £87 a month whereas, under the new system, that student will be repaying £50 a month. Under our proposals, there will be far less to deter people from lower-income backgrounds from entering higher education.
We reject the amendments. The United Kingdom does not have a symmetrical system of higher education or, indeed, of education. If the Government had agreed to pay students from the rest of the United Kingdom for four-year degree courses at Scottish universities, there would have been the same demand on a larger scale in respect of four-year courses at universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Moreover, all the money to pay for that would, by definition, have gone to better-off families instead of into higher education. The whole purpose of


the Bill is to ensure that more money goes into higher education, to widen access and to give this country the educational and research base that it needs for the future.

Mr. Willetts: We have heard a speech from the Minister who came up with the wheeze of cutting the tuition fees that Scottish students in Scottish universities had to pay—they would have to pay them only for three years. Presumably, he thought that that would have an effect on the participation rates of Scottish students in Scottish universities. If that argument is good enough for Scottish students, it is good enough for English, Welsh and Northern Irish students.
The simple point behind our amendment is that students from different parts of the United Kingdom should not be discriminated against by reason of their residence—that is one-nation politics, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will be able to support the amendment. I appreciate that some Labour Members feel a bit squeamish about supporting a Conservative amendment, although, in the debate, they seemed happy to endorse its principle. We should have been happy if the House had been able to discuss and vote on new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), but, sadly, that was not procedurally possible. The only way in which hon. Members will be able to express their belief that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should receive the same treatment as students from Scotland in going to Scottish universities is to vote for the amendment.
The Minister created the problem for his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment by breaking ranks—I should have loved to have heard their reaction when he came up with his wheeze. He made a rather tepid defence of the Government' s position. He described tuition fees as bad weather and the Scottish tradition of higher education as a bogus one. As we know, however, the four-year course is an integral part of the educational experience of going to a Scottish university, and there is no reasonable prospect that English students will all take up a course at a Scottish university in the second year. We invite hon. Members from all parties who believe in equity between the different countries of the United Kingdom to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 300.

Division No. 293]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Breed, Colin


Allan, Richard
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, James
Burnett, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burstow, Paul


Baker, Norman
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cash, William


Bercow, John
Chidgey, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clappison, James


Blunt, Crispin
Colvin, Michael


Brady, Graham
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brake, Tom
Cotter, Brian


Brazier, Julian
Cran, James





Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dafis, Cynog
Madel, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Oaten, Mark


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fearn, Ronnie
Prior, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Rendel, David


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gorrie, Donald
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Salmond, Alex


Green, Damian
Sanders, Adrian


Grieve, Dominic
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hancock, Mike
Soames, Nicholas


Harris, Dr Evan
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Harvey, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hayes, John
Steen, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Stunell, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Swayne, Desmond


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Swinney, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Syms, Robert


Horam, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyler, Paul


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Walter, Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wardle, Charles


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Webb, Steve


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Welsh, Andrew


Kirkwood, Archy
Whittingdale, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Willetts, David


Lansley, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Leigh, Edward
Wilshire, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Woodward, Shaun


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Livsey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Collins.


MacKay, Andrew







NOES


Ainger, Nick
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Alexander, Douglas
Dawson, Hilton


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Atherton, Ms Candy
Doran, Frank


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony
Drew, David


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beard, Nigel
Efford, Clive


Begg, Miss Anne
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Fatchett, Derek


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galloway, George



Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Buck, Ms Karen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grant, Bernie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Church, Ms Judith
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)





Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rammell, Bill


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Khabra, Piara S



Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rogers, Allan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Savidge, Malcolm


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheerman, Barry


Love, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Singh, Marsha


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McFall, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McNulty, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


MacShane, Denis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stevenson, George


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mallaber, Judy
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun



Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Temple—Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Olner, Bill
Vaz, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Organ, Mrs Diana
Walley, Ms Joan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Pearson, Ian
Watts, David


Pendry, Tom
White, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Plaskitt, James
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pollard, Kerry
Wills, Michael


Pond, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Winnick, David






Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Greg Pope.


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Question accordingly negatived.

9 pm

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 15, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations under this section shall make provision requiring the Secretary of State to pay maintenance grants to eligible students whose income or parental income is less than a prescribed amount.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 107, in page 15, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—

(a) in any regulations made under this section in relation to any eligible student for any prescribed purpose for any academic year, provision continues to be made for maintenance grants to be payable to such a student, and
(b) the value of such grants shall be no less in real terms than the amounts prescribed at the time this section comes into force.'.

No. 121, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—
'(6A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that, in any regulations made under this section in relation to any eligible student for any prescribed purpose for any academic year—

(a) the maximum amount of any loan made available to that student is no greater than half the prescribed cost of maintenance for such a student for that purpose for that year, and
(b) provision continues to be made for maintenance grants to be payable to such a student, subject to—

(1) a maximum amount of half the prescribed cost of maintenance, and
(ii) assessment of any contributions applicable in his case.'.


No. 36, in clause 27, page 21, line 46, at end insert—
'(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision requiring the Secretary of State to pay maintenance grants to eligible students whose income or parental income is less than a prescribed amount.'.

Mr. Canavan: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would oblige the Government to pay maintenance grants to eligible students whose income, or whose parental income, is less than a prescribed amount. I am in good company in moving the amendment, because option B of the Dearing report—Dearing' s preferred option—included payment of maintenance grants, especially for low-income families, because their withdrawal would act as a disincentive to potential students.
The case for maintenance grants seems self-evident. Before I was elected to the House, I spent virtually all my working life in education, teaching in comprehensive schools. At one stage, I was assistant head of one of the largest secondary schools in Scotland, and a fair number of my pupils came from disadvantaged home backgrounds, many of them from low-income families. Despite their disadvantage, a reasonable number managed to stay at school and, in some cases, to go on to college or university, and I know that that involved considerable sacrifice and hardship for the low-income families who encouraged their sons and daughters to do so. That would have been absolutely impossible if those sons and daughters had not received grants.
How on earth will a young person from a low-income family be encouraged to go to college or university if he or she is told, "You will receive no grant and you will have to borrow all the money for maintenance while you


are at college or university"? At the end of a course, students will have a millstone round their necks—a debt of more than £15,000 in some cases.
Most of the Government's Education Ministers used to be shadow Ministers, and some of them voted against Tory proposals to switch from grants to loans, arguing that that would be bad for students and for educational opportunity for young people. Now they are in government, they tell us that they have changed their minds, and that there is no evidence that the move from grants to loans will act as a disincentive because the participation rate is up, not down. However, that rate is up despite the movement from grants to loans, rather than because of it. Our participation rates are well behind those of countries such as the United States, Australia and Canada. Furthermore, our rates among socio-economic groups D and E are particularly inadequate, which is why Dearing recommended the continuation of maintenance grants to facilitate access for students from low-income families.

Dr. Lynne Jones: It is true that with the introduction of maintenance grants, the participation percentage went up for people from the lower socio-economic groups, but between 1991 and 1995, of the total of 60,000 additional places, students from group E took up only 3,000, and those from groups D and E only 10,000. Most of the additional places went to those from the higher socio-economic groups.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend reinforces my point that a huge improvement is required to increase access for students or potential students from low-income families and deprived backgrounds.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a Labour Government can propose the abolition of maintenance grants, especially when that Government contain many Ministers who were themselves beneficiaries of the very generous higher education grant system introduced under an earlier Labour Government, when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister.
When I recently put that point to a senior Cabinet Minister, he said, "But Dennis, one in three or more now go to university, compared with only one in 14 when we went." I must confess that I fail to see the logic in that, because it would have been far fewer than one in 14 if there had been no grants.

Mr. Willis: I have a great deal of sympathy for the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, as I, too, have a background in education in deprived areas, particularly in Leeds and the north-east, but does he accept that the biggest barrier to young people from the lower socio-economic groups going on to university is not specifically finance, but their academic achievement in school?

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman's experience as a teacher may be quite different from mine, as I can remember some pupils of great academic achievement whose parents experienced grave difficulties in allowing them to stay on at school, let alone go on to university. The complete abolition of the grant system would be an even bigger impediment.
My brother and I were the first two members of our family to have the opportunity to go to university. We would never have had that opportunity had grants not

existed. Our grandfather was forced to leave school at the age of 10, he went down a coal mine at 12 and he was a Labour councillor in the 1920s. He and his Labour colleagues had the vision to see that education was the key to the liberation of working-class people, and they laid the basis of a grant system to encourage working-class children to stay on in education. That continuing education would never have happened had it not been for the vision and foresight of Labour pioneers in local as well as national Government.
I now have four grandchildren and I think that I have a duty to pass on to them the same benefits that my grandfather passed on to me, but I fear that the Government's proposals will turn back the clock. I urge the House to support the amendment, which is forward-looking and will improve educational opportunity for many young people, and especially those from low-income families.

Mr. Willetts: The debate, which continues with this important amendment, shows how important and right it was that the Dearing committee was set up—and how significant a contribution to the higher education debate its report is. The reason why we set up the Dearing inquiry when we were in government—and, of course, we did so on a bipartisan basis, with the agreement of the then Labour Opposition—was that important questions needed to be asked about the future direction of higher education.
We had achieved a significant widening of access to higher education and a big increase in the number of students participating in higher education, but that was financed to a significant extent by a reduction in the unit of resource per student. Many people in the higher education world should be congratulated on delivering those efficiency savings, but they could not carry on indefinitely in that way; that is the first reason why we set up the Dearing committee.
We also set up the Dearing inquiry because we had had the objective of moving from a system of 100 per cent. grants to one of 50 per cent. grants and 50 per cent. loans. It was right, once we had reached that 50:50 mix, to take a step back and to invite an independent body of experts to review whether the 50:50 balance was correct or whether we should go further.
I will be frank with the House. I expected the Dearing report to conclude that the maintenance grant should be abolished, and I think that many people believed that that would be Dearing' s conclusion. Indeed, in his report, Ron Dearing—Lord Dearing as he now is—makes a remark in passing that suggests that that is where he himself began. In discussing precisely the point before the House—the balance between grants and loans—he says:
In going through that process"—
the process of careful scrutiny of the evidence—
we all changed and developed our views: we did not end up where we started.
When they reviewed the evidence, the 15 experts under Ron Dearing concluded that the 50:50 split between grants and loans was the right split, and that the maintenance grant should not be abolished. Having set up the Dearing inquiry—as I say, on a bipartisan basis—we are persuaded by the arguments that Ron Dearing advances. Those arguments are persuasive. If we set up the Dearing inquiry on an honest basis, we should all accept the conclusions that he reaches.
The core argument in Dearing's report is simple. It is that, with the proposals that are being put before the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, a student from a low-income background will end his or her university career with a debt of £10,320, instead of a debt of £5,625. It is impossible for anyone contemplating the figures on the increased indebtedness of students who, by definition, will be from the poorest backgrounds, to maintain that that will have no impact on access to higher education.
It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State—and we all admire his decency and commitment to wider access to higher education—has got himself into the position of trying to maintain that doubling the debt of students from the poorest backgrounds is somehow compatible with the objective, which he believes in, of widening access to higher education. That is a problem that he has created for himself by not implementing the proposals in the Dearing report.
For the future of higher education, the best way forward is to take the entire package that is proposed by Ron Dearing; nothing else on offer from any party is more thought through, has more empirical evidence in support or commands greater consensus in the world of higher education. The onus is on those who want to do something different from the report's proposals to explain why they believe that, instead of keeping that 50:50 split between maintenance grant and loan, the maintenance grant should be entirely abolished. I suspect that there was an understanding on the part of many people in the world of higher education that if they agreed to the policies that the Labour party hinted at before the election—abolishing the maintenance grant—

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): It was not a hint.

Mr. Willetts: It was not explicit in the manifesto, but let us give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt: Labour implied that it would get rid of the maintenance grant. The problem is that there was another part to the deal, which was that Labour would not introduce tuition fees. When the National Union of Students signed up to the deal, it believed that if it went along quietly with the abolition of maintenance grant, tuition fees would not be imposed. That is why the then Leader of the Opposition told the Evening Standard in the notorious questionnaire that he answered that he had
no plans to introduce tuition fees.
People in higher education thought that they would have to sacrifice the maintenance grant in exchange for—

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, before the election, the NUS was far more concerned about the idea of top-up fees, which his party said it would allow colleges and universities to introduce? They would have been a far greater deterrent to equality of access than the current proposals.

Mr. Willetts: We were careful not to anticipate the Dearing report. The Government are in such a muddle

partly because they thought that the deal they were putting together would also be proposed by Dearing. They were caught out by the fact that Dearing did not recommend abolishing the maintenance grant and not introducing tuition fees.
We have no desire for the widespread use of top-up fees—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will tell the House about the problems faced by real life vice-chancellors. One of them heads a university offering a course in maritime engineering, training engineers to investigate North sea structures. He is rightly proud of the course, one of the best in the country. He cannot be expected to give his students a free diving course, even though they need to be qualified divers. He wants, therefore, to be able to carry on charging for the diving course; and he wants to know whether he will need a statutory instrument, cleared by the DFEE, to enable him to do so. Anyone who thinks that the way to reform higher education for the 21st century is to force vice-chancellors to go to the DFEE to clear their financial arrangements for maritime engineering courses has another think coming—it is nonsensical.

Mr. Derek Twigg: What exactly would the hon. Gentleman rule out for top-up fees?

Mr. Willetts: We would rule out a general regime of top-up fees. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not take part in the Committee debates. In Committee, we tabled an amendment making it explicit that the tuition fee should be no more than 25 per cent. of the cost of the university course; and to make it difficult for the Government to charge more than that. I know from our time in office how people often criticise reforms as the start of a slippery slope—there will be worse to come, they say. That is indeed what happened in Australia. We were trying to put more hurdles in the way of Ministers who might attempt to put up the percentage by more than price increases—but Ministers did not accept our amendments. The question asked by the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) would, therefore, be better addressed to his own Government.
I do not want to go on for much longer, because I know that many Labour Members want to speak. The point is a simple one: it is whether or not the Secretary of State can honestly tell the House that the measures he is trying to get through tonight will widen access to higher education. Nobody can seriously believe that doubling the debt of students from the poorest backgrounds can contribute to that.
The Secretary of State has rushed out a package of concessions today which, no doubt, he will tell the House is intended to answer that anxiety about access. As I said earlier, today's package bears striking similarities to the one he launched before the Labour party conference to help get him through that event, and to the one he launched in early November to get him through a debate in the House, so little in the package is new to us. He has introduced some proposals on helping single parents, which seem to be focused more on the last Labour rebellion than on the issue before us tonight. Whatever he proposes in respect of mature students and single parents does not alter the fact that every person who seriously studied the issue concluded that the maintenance grant should stay on the 50:50 basis at which the Conservative Government left it.
I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) when I say that, if the House does not reach our amendment—it is unlikely that we shall have an opportunity to vote on it—the Conservatives will support his amendment. We shall do so because his amendment is consistent with the Dearing report, and it is the Dearing report on which we rest our case. We shall not be supporting him on the abolition of tuition fees because, unlike the Liberal Democrats, we recognise that one of the things that people in higher education want is an increase in resources; therefore, the obligation on anyone who is serious about contributing to the debate on higher education is to specify where those resources should come from.
Dearing thought that that increase should come from the tuition fee. Our objection to the tuition fee is not one of principle, but one of practice. The Government, instead of introducing the tuition fee on the basis envisaged by Dearing, which would have brought an overall increase in resources to universities, have not been able to accept our amendment, which proposes that there should be a guarantee that there will not be offsetting reductions in Higher Education Funding Council grants to universities that will reduce universities' grant according to whatever extra money they raise from tuition fees. That is the objection of many in the university world to the Government's tuition fees proposals, to which subject we might turn later this evening.

Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I fear that courses in deep-sea diving may prove appropriate in the months and years ahead. I can help the hon. Gentleman out a little tonight, as my son is studying marine biology and has to undertake diving lessons—so far, at his own expense. However, if the hon. Gentleman examines amendment No. 77, he will see that his friend who teaches marine engineering will be able to organise suitable field trips so that his students can undertake diving. I thought that it would be useful to start off on a helpful note.

Mr. Willetts: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and welcome the fact that the amendment to which he refers is one that Conservative Members tabled in Committee. The Government were not willing to accept it at that stage, but have now accepted it in response to the arguments that we advanced in Committee.

Mr. Blunkett: As long as I am in the job, I shall have the open-mindedness to see when even something from Conservative Members registers as acceptable. That is what we have done, and what we shall continue to do.
I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will be less than pleased to be walking through the Lobby with Conservatives this evening, defending a system that is indefensible. Those who vote against our proposals tonight would have to put something in their place—not simply to replace our proposals on maintenance, or, for that matter, on a contribution by the better-off towards fees, but to replace the system that has clearly failed.
We are here tonight discussing this matter not for the benefit of our health or because we are masochists, but because the previous system was on the verge of collapse.

The education system that we were offering had been eroded by the previous Government. There had been a 40 per cent. drop in unit costs. Universities were unable to envisage resources being made available in future to maintain and improve quality. At the same time, they saw a real danger that, as higher education became available to more students, restrictions would be placed, as they had been over the previous five years, on the number of students—certainly south of the border—who could go to university. That was the cap imposed by the Conservative Government, along with an erosion of quality and underfunding, and there were cries from the universities that they were on the verge of collapse.
Something had to be done. Students asked for something to be done because of the mish-mash of the mortgage-type loans scheme and the erosion of the residual grant, which the Conservative Government had cut year after year. Yet tonight, Conservative Members are telling us that they are suddenly in favour of maintenance grants, when it was they who started the process of removing them.

Mr. John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I will. I hope that you will not defend Opposition Members.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. McDonnell: I think that we deserve better than that. On the principle that you have raised—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would be grateful if both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) used the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. McDonnell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Secretary of State said that the grant has been eroded and therefore must now be abolished, but pensions were eroded by the previous Government. Are we to abolish them?

Mr. Blunkett: I expected better of the hon. Gentleman, despite the remark I made when I gave way to him. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He is your hon. Friend."' He is "the hon. Gentleman" to me, and I shall describe him in the terms I want.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that, if we were to do something about the mish-mash that existed, we would have to restore the grant in full, because to leave it in the circumstances that we inherited, with the mortgage-type loans scheme and the residual parental contributions, would do no student a favour. It would trap students in that mortgage-type scheme, fail to increase the grant element, and atrophy a mess in perpetuity. We would have to find the money for the grant and therefore raise money from elsewhere to fund further access and the opening up of places in higher education, which my hon. Friends who have put their names to the amendments would want.
At the same time, we would have to ensure that we funded priorities such as nursery education, literacy and numeracy programmes, the avoidance of exclusion,


investment in the infrastructure of schools, and the preparation for a new century in terms of investment in new technology. Nobody believes that there is a fairy godmother, and that we will not only find the money for expansion and the money the universities are desperate for to retain their world-class status and quality, as well as to restore the former grant levels, but to deal with pensioners, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised. One has to live in the real world of politics to make difficult decisions and see them through.

Mr. Llew Smith: Is the Secretary of State saying that some of the poorest families, and, indeed, the poorest students, in my community would prefer no grant to even a small grant?

Mr. Blunkett: I think that they would prefer to have higher education rather than no education at all. That is the option. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) should bear this in mind: if we were to retain the cap on higher education and not expand the numbers, which will cost a lot of money, who would get their sons and daughters into university? Who have historically found places for their sons and daughters in university?

Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: In a moment.
Only 2 per cent. of children from manual labouring families get into university. Like me, my hon. Friend has a constituency with one of the lowest rates of adult higher education in Britain. My constituency is the sixth worst in Britain in that regard.
I know what students want. They tell me that they want support when they need it, and that they are prepared to contribute when they can afford to do so. It is a simple, old principle: to those according to their need from those according to their means. When people have the means—when their earnings from future prosperity allow them—they are willing to make a contribution.
That is what we are asking in our new programme: it is the nearest thing we have to progressive taxation. It is based on the simple principle of being attached to the Inland Revenue, with repayment determined by the level of income at a time when people can afford it and in circumstances that ensure that people receive the resources when they need them. The programme is entirely in line with the manifesto upon which my hon. Friends fought the general election.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Havant, the manifesto said:
The improvement and expansion needed
in higher education
cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad. The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed.

We cannot make it clearer than that—it is not a hint or an implication, but a manifesto commitment upon which we won the general election.

Mr. Don Foster: Although the Liberal Democrats do not support the Secretary of State in introducing tuition fees, he will be aware that we support him in requiring an increased amount of money from students through the change from maintenance grants to loans. Does he accept that his argument would have considerably greater force if he would give a clear commitment that the additional money raised from students will be ring-fenced and spent in the higher education sector?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give what I have given at least twice in the House: a commitment that the resources raised will go to further and higher education. We refer to "further and higher education" because of the overlap between those two areas.
In Scotland, where the level of entry into higher education is 45 per cent., compared with 32 per cent. in England and a similar figure in Wales, the number of students taking higher education courses is very much higher than the figure south of the border.
I am not prepared to discriminate against further education, which needs funding desperately. Adult students are not exempt from having to contribute towards their further education fees, and they have been treated disgracefully in the past in relation to maintenance. This and subsequent Parliaments will begin to resolve that inequity. I wish that those who are today opposing the manifesto commitment and Government policy were concerned about the problems in further education.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Ted Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: To which of the group should I give way—the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)?

Mr. Rowlands: Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I hope. It is a bit different from Hackney. In my manifesto to my constituency, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I did not propose the introduction of tuition fees, and nor, to my knowledge, did we do so nationally.

Mr. Blunkett: I am dealing with maintenance, but I am not proposing to abolish free fees, and I am certainly not preparing to do so—as other parties would do—for those on low incomes. I am quite prepared, later tonight, to defend the situation in relation to protecting the better-off in relation to their having to pay a small contribution to—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend referred to the resources to be raised. What is the departmental estimate of the amount to be raised? What has the Department for


Education and Employment said, in its professional opinion, is the amount likely to be raised by these proposals? Is it about £140 million, or is that the wrong figure?

Mr. Blunkett: What will be raised is offset by the initial costs of the provision of the sums that must be repaid. That would be necessary whichever system we used. In other words, we would have to find the money—be it a grant or a loan—initially, to do so. However, the actual amount that will come in from maintenance next year—as opposed to the amount that must go out—is £600 million, and the year after, it will be £850 million.
That is the nub of the reason why we took the decision to extend the Dearing proposals, and combined that with the manifesto commitment. In that way, we would raise sufficient resources to ensure that we could provide access, retain and extend quality, and provide a fair system, which would hold for years to come.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Ms Abbott: rose—

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way; I want to make progress.

Mr. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has said that he will not give way at the moment.

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way later. I want to make progress, because we need to deal head on with the question why we are introducing the repayment system for maintenance.
At the start of the debate, the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Havant, talked about what the Conservative Government had done. It is quite important tonight that we shed a little light on what the hon. Gentleman believed and believes, because, if he is to succeed in opposition, the first lesson he must learn is, "Always check what you have written yourself."
In his book, "Why Vote Conservative?"—an extremely good question—the hon. Member for Havant wrote:
In the old days we spent a lot per student, including a generous maintenance grant. That high level of spending per student was only possible for a system aimed at a tiny elite of students: it acted as a barrier to expansion. The increase in student numbers has been associated with a change in the pattern of student support.
He said that nearly 2 million student loan accounts would have been issued and £4 billion would have been provided in loans. He said:
That is a massive contribution to student welfare. It is inconceivable that taxpayers, often on modest incomes themselves, would have been willing to pay it all outright as grants.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the old system was designed for a small elite. He was right to say that modest income tax payers would be unwilling to fund others who would be better off in later life, if they did not believe that they would make a contribution themselves. He was right to say that the system would erode. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman stick to his guns tonight,

and admit that his Government did not have the guts to reorganise the system? They did not have the bottle to set about the reforms needed. They left it to us to sort out the mess that they had created.
We are carrying through our manifesto and conference decision. I have always believed that conference decisions were important in ensuring that the parliamentary party was accountable to the party as a whole, and that conference was the decision-making body and should be respected by those who, as representatives of the party in Parliament, hold their place only because we stood on a common manifesto, not on one that we wrote ourselves on the back of an envelope.

Mr. Willetts: As the Secretary of State is so keen on the manifesto basis for maintenance grants, will he explain where in the Labour manifesto the introduction of tuition fees is mentioned? If the manifesto doctrine is the basis on which he defends maintenance grants, how will he explain the fact that, before the election, the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, made it clear that Labour would not introduce tuition fees?

Mr. Blunkett: First, that does not relate to the amendment. Secondly, I made it abundantly clear at the general election that we would await the Dearing report. I said again and again, in Parliament and outside, that we would reserve our position, and that I was open to persuasion. That was included in the statements during the general election.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. On ITN at lunchtime, a student was interviewed. I do not know where the political reporters were. The student said that, if these measures were introduced, half the students would not want to go to university. That was a little out of date. The numbers of students applying for the autumn term from school and college have gone up this year. Those who predicted a massive drop were simply wrong. We understand from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service—UCAS—based on data from postal codes, that there has been no change in the socio-economic make-up of students applying for university next year.
Part-time students will not be affected, except that they will be secure if they lose their job. We will support them and help them out. Such help was not available before.
There is undoubtedly concern about full-time mature students. The matter is close to my heart, as I made clear on Second Reading. I have every intention of ensuring that mature students are supported and helped wherever necessary. First, in the Green Paper "The Learning Age", we stated that we would consult on the issue of lifting the threshold—the age—at which someone would be entitled to help. I am delighted to announce that, having consulted, we will lift that figure, so that people under 55 will be entitled to support and help in the same way as younger students.
We said that we would look at how we could increase access funding. We are doubling access funding, and we are making it available in such a way that it can help people who are seeking places, not just those who are already experiencing hardship in universities.
We said that we would provide a non-means-tested special grant for disabled people. I can announce that we will increase it to £10,000 for those who need extra support because of their special needs.
We said that we would protect those who were worse off as mature students with dependants. We will retain the non-repayable grant for students with dependants, and we will retain as a non-repayable grant the £1,000 for single parents, as we recognise that they do not have the support at home that would otherwise be available to mature students. The package ensures that those in their later years who wish to enter higher education have nothing to fear from our proposals.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the excellent measures that he has brought forward? However, will he recognise that I have some disappointment that he has not yet explicitly addressed the issue of care leavers, who are grossly under-represented in the population of young people who go on to higher education? These people have explicit financial needs, and at least they should be supported through the long vacations.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. The scandal of 75 per cent. of school leavers from residential care leaving without any qualification must be recognised. Even more scandalous is that only 1 per cent. leave with an A-level qualification. We need to reverse that trend. As was said earlier this evening, it is the low standards that too many of our children receive at school that are the main barrier to them entering higher education. I am prepared to consider specific help for those leaving residential care as part of a much broader package between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health, to support those people as a decent family would do if it had the necessary resources.
I do not pretend for a moment that the proposals that the House is considering right the wrongs of inequity within our society. I cannot overturn in terms of student funding and funding for universities the difference between the silver spoon that some children are born with and the wooden spoon of others. However, I can ensure that the education that those from poorer families receive enables them to provide that silver spoon for their children. In other words, it will be the foothold on the ladder of learning.

Dr. Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way one more time.

Dr. Iddon: I appreciate the raising of the age limit to 55, on which I have been lobbying my right hon. Friend. If, tragically, one of these mature students died, would repayment of the loan disappear, and not become a burden on the estate of such a person?

Mr. Blunkett: The difference between a mortgage-type repayment and an income-related scheme is that ability to pay is dependent on income. If someone is deceased, the debt dies with him. If his income drops, so does his

repayment. That is why I said earlier that the proposal is as near as possible to the principle of progressive taxation. That is its basis.

Ms Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I shall not give way. I shall make two final remarks.
First, our proposals are a direct alternative to universities introducing top-up fees, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Havant. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, had we not reorganised and introduced an entirely new way of funding universities and access for students, we would have faced a barrage of top-up fees from universities. Top-up fees play no part in our proposals, and it is not my intention that they should.
Secondly, we had to face the simple reality that, over the years, we have let down too many of our young people. We have failed them in terms of the standards they received at school and the expectations that they should rightly have for themselves and their future. These proposals enable them to get that foothold and to take up higher education, not by squeezing out other students, but by expanding the possibilities and the available options, and by doing so to ensure that they can pay back. They will be able to afford to pay back the contribution that has been invested in their future. That is why rights and responsibilities go together. It is why the Government have bitten the bullet, and decided to take these measures for the future of our country.

Mr. Welsh: The Secretary of State taunted one of his colleagues, but I believe that it was the right hon. Gentleman who was seeking to defend the indefensible. If the previous system was on the verge of collapse, it was because the Tories were inventing the policies that the right hon. Gentleman is now carrying out. The real problem is lack of resources. Instead of providing them, the Government are putting the financial burden on to individual students and their families, which is unacceptable for a party that said that its priority was education, education, education.
When the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I were elected in 1974, we taught at neighbouring schools, and my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was a teaching colleague of the hon. Gentleman at his school. I therefore understand exactly the situation he described, and his motivation in moving the amendment. Although the introduction of tuition fees has received a lot of attention, the scrapping of grants is a more serious problem. Dearing proposed retaining grants, but the Government ignored his considered view, and are steamrollering through this unpopular and unwise policy. Dearing had hardly uttered his conclusions before the Government had overturned them.
Means-testing fees will help students from poorer backgrounds, but the fact that they will be expected to pay their living costs will result in many deciding against higher education because of the financial barrier.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: rose—

Mr. Welsh: The Government's decision to abolish grants will force students on longer courses into debt of


£15,000 or more. The loans may be income-contingent, but they will still act as sufficient deterrent. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) does not believe that.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: By how much would the hon. Gentleman's party be prepared to raise income tax to pay for the measures that he suggests?

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Lady should look at our policy for an independent Scotland. We have fully costed such policies, but our problem—[Interruption.] An independent Scotland could well afford it.
Our problem is that we are inheriting from the Government an impoverished devolved assembly living on pocket money that will face, for exactly the same reasons, exactly the same problems that the Government have imposed on the hon. Lady. The Government are not making education their priority, and she will be answerable to her constituents for that.
The amendment would tackle a severe problem. I must point out to the hon. Lady, because I notice the great distinction between traditional Labour and new Labour, that the reality under the new Labour Government is that a student in receipt of a full grant who takes out a full loan receives almost £800 a year less than an unemployed single person claiming jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit. Under the proposed system, students will, if anything, be in a worse position, which is hardly an incentive for people on benefits to enter further or higher education. That is the policy supported by the hon. Lady, and she is answerable for that.
Students are most concerned about the abolition of grants. That is the clear message at student rallies and protest marches, and in petitions which have been organised throughout the country. Perhaps the hon. Lady wants to ignore that, but those people are voters, and they will let her know how they feel.
I must make a point to the hon. Lady from the Scottish perspective. The previous debate showed that the Minister in charge of Scottish education believes that the Scottish four-year degree is a bogus tradition. No wonder he is even more unpopular than his Tory predecessor—the Government are completely out of touch with educational institutions and with public opinion. The hon. Lady can defend that if she wants to do so, but the Government should abandon their proposal to abolish grants and think again.
I support the amendment, and I know the motivation of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West in moving it. I commend him for so doing.The Government were elected on a priority of education, education, education. They should say why they have abandoned that priority. I leave that to their conscience.

Miss Melanie Johnson: First, hon. Members must ask how they want to use taxpayers' money. It is important to use a lot of that money to help people into the education system early and to give them every support, so that they come out of the school system with good qualifications and educated to a high standard. Secondly, we must ask ourselves what is fair for students and for taxpayers. Those questions must both be weighed in the balance. It is a matter of choice, and there are many choices to be made in this matter.
One way of looking at the issue is to imagine that we were making a decision without knowing, in this case, whether we were rich or poor. That form of decision making comes from the philosophy of a man called Rawls in deciding the meaning of justice. I recommend that way of looking at the matter to the House, because the Government's proposals, as opposed to those in the amendment, match the criteria for the best and most just way of making a decision.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: I shall give way in a moment.
What we have here is a process that gives people a fair deal, whether they are poor or rich.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), sitting two seats away from the hon. Lady, called me sotto voce "elitist" after my speech. I am a former pupil of Govan high school. Ordinary folk from Govan went to university and went on to do PhDs, which they could do then under the grant system. They will now be deterred from doing so by the massive loans that must be repaid. Is the hon. Lady really saying that putting a massive debt on individuals will improve access to further and higher education?

Miss Johnson: Several comments can be made about that. First, we have already heard this evening how, at one time, one in 14 people went on to university, whereas we now have a much better ratio of one in three. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Quite right. To sustain the progress that has been made in that respect, we must look at how to proceed in the future. I spoke earlier about the decisions and choices that people have to make. Crucial to the debate is the fact that people must decide at one time in their life what university course to do and what to do with the rest of their life—we are trying to give people as much access to those courses as possible—and, at a later time, they must pay back into the system, according to their income. Those two events do not happen at the same time. Some Members of this House, if not deliberately then certainly mistakenly, conflate the two time scales. The issue of when students pay back is crucial.
Earlier in the debate, we heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) talk about the principle of angels dancing on a pinhead. Given his party, I was moved to wonder whether he was referring to the amount of Liberal Democrat policy that one could get from 1p on income tax. He talked about access to places such as Covent Garden and said that we could not get more access. People must pay now for the privilege of access to Covent Garden, which is why it is a privilege that few can afford. The proposals that we are discussing give people the opportunity to pay back later when they can afford so to do, which is why they are fair.

Ms Abbott: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: The hon. Lady has come relatively late into the Chamber.

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Miss Johnson: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who has been here for some time.

Dr. Jones: The hon. Lady is perfectly right to say that our priority must be to give more young people from


poorer family backgrounds access to higher education. That must be our top priority, but of the young people who are qualified to go to university, those from a lower socio-economic background are about half as likely to go to university as those from the top classes of society. Why does she think that is, and how does she think these measures will help to improve that situation?

Miss Johnson: The figures certainly do not show that the present system is successful. Were it successful, the hon. Lady would not be highlighting such figures. Nor would one of the other contributors to the debate have highlighted the same figures. If the system were successful, there would be much better access. That is what we are addressing.

10 pm

Caroline Flint: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that, following the introduction of student loans, between 1991 and 1997, the number of students from unskilled and semi-skilled families rose from 6 per cent. to 14 per cent., showing that previous maintenance loans were clearly not working for such people and that access to further funding to support them through college did? Today's proposals are a progression on that.

Miss Johnson: Exactly that point needs to be made.
I come now to the question of the future, in which there is every likelihood of good pay. Such a future is available to many graduates. If people do not receive a good income, they will not have to pay back the loans. In fact, they will have to pay back nothing if they earn less than £10,000 a year. At earnings of £17,000 a year, they will pay back only £12 a week—4 per cent. of their income.
I have felt able most strongly to recommend that extremely good investment to sixth-form students in my constituency, when I have spoken to them on the subject over the past six months or so. The comments were well received, and many local students were persuaded—quite rightly—of the Government's arguments. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh, but those students were persuaded. I have received almost no letters of complaint about the changes from sixth formers. The proposals are finding much favour.
It is interesting to note, as does the editorial in The Times today, that there is an unholy alliance—The Times describes it as an "incredible alliance of convenience"—between the National Union of Students and the Tory party. The editorial expresses the hope that the arrival of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in place of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), as shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, will mean that the Tories will reconsider their opposition to the Government's proposals. My experience in talking to students is very much in line with the sympathies expressed in today's editorial in The Times.

Mr. Green: I assure the hon. Lady that, as long as the NUS is prepared to support the Conservative party, we Conservatives are happy to have its support. I am happy that she is happy to throw such support away.

Miss Johnson: I am reliably informed that the NUS is not entirely with the Conservative party in these matters,

because it supports us on the question of maintenance. None the less, it seems to be making an unholy alliance with the Conservatives on other related matters.
We must bear it in mind that, although Conservatives and, indeed, some Labour Members are expressing concern, part-time, Open university and postgraduate students already pay fees of the kind that is envisaged. Indeed, most further education students pay fees. We are proposing that much more of the higher education sector should fall into line with much of the further education sector and the remainder of the HE sector. Parity between different sectors is important. There is no reason in justice why somebody on one course should receive markedly different support from the state from that received by someone doing a similar course post school.

Ms Abbott: The hon. Lady referred earlier to fairness and justice. She must be aware that after examining the options in great detail, Dearing expressly rejected completely abolishing the maintenance grant—a means-tested grant—as that would bear most heavily on the poorest students. Could the hon. Lady explain how loading young people from Hackney with a burden of debt—which would not be the case if the maintenance grant were not abolished—will encourage them to go to university?

Miss Johnson: The trouble with the hon. Lady's argument is that it takes no account of the fact that no remission was envisaged in the provisions to which she refers. Therefore, she is not comparing like with like. Under the proposals—which I support—twice the level of subsidy will go to those from poorer homes than to those from richer homes.
It was entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) describe his support for his daughters, and the fact that they would end up with no debts as a result of their time as students. I commend his support for them, but the fact is that many families cannot afford to do that. The question is how we provide people with access to higher education. We cannot usefully compare students from families with a lot of money, which will always be able to support and buy more for their children, with those from poorer families, which can never hope to do that.
Five years after a person graduates, he or she is likely to be earning 15 per cent. more than a non-graduate. After 10 years, the figure is 20 per cent. Those arguments meant that the position that I argued with the sixth formers found favour.
It was interesting that—probably because I was a member of the Standing Committee—I received correspondence from the local branch of the NUS, which decided to take out a full-page wrap-round in the local free paper to advertise my membership of the Standing Committee and to give its views of the Government's proposals. As a result of that extensive publicity—the paper was circulated to all local residents—I received no phone calls and only, I think, two letters at my constituency office.
Despite the Opposition's position—and although some students have joined them—their complaints are not finding support among the public, because the public recognise that there is an issue to be addressed. We cannot run the system that was left to us with 40 per cent. Less


per head going in with each student to each university place. Many students will find that we shall not be able to increase access. Something will have to give—the access or the quality, or both. I would suggest that it is close to being both, but quality is currently at risk.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Lady's last point is incredibly important. Dearing said that we needed £365 million this year, £550 million next year and £1 billion by 2000 simply to stand still with the existing number of students. Fees this year will raise £150 million. How does the hon. Lady—and her Front-Bench colleagues—propose to make up the difference, to give us the quality that we need for our existing students, let alone more students?

Miss Johnson: We have spent £165 million this year, and proposals will emerge from the comprehensive spending reviews, which are about to report. The Government need take no lectures from Opposition Members—particularly the hon. Gentleman, who would spend 1p on income tax many times over. In Committee, we saw him spend that 1p many times over.
I reiterate my belief that the proposals will produce a much more just system—they will produce greater fairness and better access. In particular, people from poorer backgrounds will be helped; they will be able to afford to say, "I can invest in my education. As I can pay back the money when I can afford to do so, I can, as a young adult, take responsibility for this investment and pay back the system."
I am sure that this year's figures, which show an increased interest among 18 to 21-year-olds in university places, will be followed by even better figures in the years to come. We shall find that access is enhanced, especially for the groups that we want to be better represented in the universities.

Mr. John Hayes: There are three principal differences between the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) and me—[Laughter.] I should say that there are three principal differences beyond those that are patently obvious. First, I recognise the extent of public disquiet about the Government's proposals—for the hon. Lady to say that she has received no correspondence about them is incredible, although I understand that she is ex-directory.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I did not say that I had received no correspondence; I said that, as a result of the student union advertisement, I received no additional correspondence. I have had some correspondence, but not a significant amount.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her qualification, although it throws even less light on the amount of correspondence that she received than her original comments did.
The second difference is that I come from a working-class background, so I might not have qualified to become a new Labour Member of Parliament. I was the first in my family to enjoy the opportunity of going to university, partly because sufficient funds were available to me. Anyone who believes that access to higher education is solely, or even principally, a matter of academic qualifications—as the hon. Member for

Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggested—misunderstands the cultural problems and social issues associated with the varying staying-on rates across the country. Even a superficial glance at those rates confirms that deep-rooted assumptions and preoccupations—about leaving school early, going to work and earning a first pay packet—prevent many people from working-class families from applying to university.

Mr. Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: Nottinghamshire, from where the hon. Gentleman comes, is a good example of what I am talking about—I give him that tip before he intervenes.

Mr. Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he agree that the difference in staying-on rates is the key issue? Culture and educational achievement, not grants, impact on low-income families. Unless expectations and achievements are raised, and unless the way in which low-income families view education is changed, access to higher education for those families will never be improved.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of sense—expectations are a key issue. To separate expectation from finance—from the burden that working-class families are likely to endure—is a nonsense, as he must know. Anything that aggravates that burden and increases apprehensions will surely have a detrimental effect on attempts to widen access.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: I have already given way to one Nottinghamshire Labour Member, and I do not intend to make a habit of it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the truth of the matter is that Dearing looked into this issue carefully. The assumption was that just as all parties accepted and welcomed the setting up of Dearing, they would accept and welcome the conclusions because it was an independent and empirical study and it therefore was not prejudiced. Frankly, it was also assumed that Dearing would recommend the abolition of the maintenance grant. However, the Dearing committee believed that abolition would damage the prospects of working-class children. Let us make no bones about it, because that is what the report said. It viewed abolition as the likely cause, not of an increase in children from working-class homes going to university and a widening of access, as many hon. Members have said, but of a narrowing of access and a disincentive to those very children, which is why it recommended keeping the maintenance grant. Let us not be under any misapprehensions about that either.
I said that there were three differences between the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and me—the third is that I am going to be concise. It is disingenuous to suggest that the public were made aware of the proposals before the election. I spoke in a number of places then—on NUS platforms and against Labour representatives.

Mr. Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Administration—the Conservative party, which he now represents—left university finances in such dire straits and capped the number of places, which meant that many young people in Corby simply could not get into university, because there were no places? Can he also explain why the Conservatives will tonight support charging all students in Corby tuition fees and why they are not opposed to universities being able to charge extra fees on top?

Mr. Hayes: I do not want to go off on a tributary towards Corby, but there was a massive expansion of higher education under the previous Government, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The figures have been made clear. Higher education mushroomed during the previous Government. Also, the Conservative Government set up Dearing, mindful of the very issues that the hon. Gentleman draws to the attention of the House. The Conservative party did not assume that those were not problems that needed to be faced or challenges that needed to be met. It reflects badly on the Labour party now that it is in government that it does not accept the advice of that independent committee.
Finally, as I do not want to fall into the trap of being quite as long-winded as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield: I meant that kindly, of course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, I meant it fairly kindly. The truth of the matter is that there was no open acknowledgement or clear manifesto pledge. I have the Labour manifesto here—I carry it with me all the time, to see how many promises have been broken—and there is no clear indication that tuition fees would be introduced. That is not mentioned. The section on higher education is very short and does not mention tuition fees at all.
Let us be absolutely frank. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they care about widening access to higher education, should resist the proposals. Furthermore, those proposals do no credit to the new Labour Government.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is not still in his place. I understood his argument about tuition fees to be that they would simply be a mechanism to deal with course fees. I think that he also referred to maritime students. That was very different from the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) in Committee when we debated these matters, when it was clear that the Conservative party was in favour of the general principle of top-up fees for institutions. That may well be part of the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's removal. It is a problem when one thing is said in the Standing Committee and a different thing on the Floor of the House.
I am happy to support the package of proposals that the Government are putting forward and recognise that many of them are challenging. When moving from a minority system of participation in higher education to a mass education system, we clearly need and desire a new funding system. As someone who worked in the university sector for 10 years before the general election, I am conscious that the universities need a substantial injection of cash, which simply will not be produced from the annual Treasury spending round.
It has been argued many times that to restore student grants to the 1979 level, to remove the cap on access and to restore university funding would cost the equivalent of 3p or 4p on the standard rate of income tax. Even if the Government were committed to raising taxation by that amount, the idea that we would spend it on students and universities instead of schools, hospitals and public transport is simply not the politics of the Government, or of the real world.

Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is doing as others have done in assuming that the amendment is about restoring the old level of maintenance grant. The amendment mentions a maintenance grant but specifies no amount, and it refers to income of a "prescribed amount", not a specified amount. It is so open-ended, I wonder why hon. Members cannot accept it.

Mr. Rammell: No matter how beneficial our system of Government finance, we will always live with a limited budget. There is a choice between retaining the current proportion of student grant and protecting students from the poorest backgrounds from tuition fees. I believe that the latter is the higher priority.
I support the Government's position because there was an explicit commitment in Labour's manifesto at the general election. I acknowledge that individual Members may have taken a different personal view, but I did not. There was a specific commitment in my party's manifesto to move from a system of student grants to an income-contingent loans system, and that is what we are debating. I want to highlight some of the disingenuity—I would say hypocrisy, but that would be unparliamentary—in the Conservative party's statement that it is opposed to scrapping maintenance grants. When in government, the Conservatives steadfastly whittled away student grants year after year. How can their position this evening be squared with the statement in November 1993 of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—then the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when he introduced the dramatic, unprecedented and previously unannounced expansion of loans as opposed to grants? He said:
the recent explosion in student numbers has revealed as ridiculous the fears that the student loan scheme might deter students from poorer families."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 931.]
That is what the Tories said in government, but they are putting forward a different story this evening. They are crying crocodile tears, and playing politics with a crucial issue.
The evidence shows that the increase in loans has not deterred access. I have come to terms with that over time, and the fact is that participation by students of lower-income backgrounds has increased since the introduction of student loans—from about 6 per cent. of students from unskilled family backgrounds in 1991 to 14 per cent. in 1997. In supporting the Government, I very much welcome the substantial increase which has doubled access funds. It will address real needs in universities and institutions in which students are genuinely struggling to make ends meet, and it should be highlighted.
Part of my reason for supporting the overall package came up when I answered the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe):


this issue is about choice within a limited budget. When it comes to deterring access, the imposition of tuition fees on students from poorer backgrounds would act as a greater disincentive to entering higher education than would the absence of a student grant. It is a question of choice, and a matter of weighing the arguments.
We must tackle the defence of the existing system which is based on traditional, principled arguments about the welfare state. It is argued that the welfare state was created to allow people to contribute according to their means and benefit according to their needs, but that is not the way in which universities and higher education have operated over the years. Over time, the people who have benefited from university education have predominantly been those from better-off backgrounds, with the vast majority coming from socio-economic groups A and B.
The key issue is how to get more students from the lower socio-economic groups to go to university. It is a matter of opening minds and raising ambitions, and the current system is inadequate. Money is important, but it is certainly not everything.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend said several times that people from working-class and lower socio-economic backgrounds do not have the expectation of going on to higher education, but he is absolutely wrong: the whole tradition of the Rhondda and the mining valleys of south Wales is that people from those very backgrounds have indeed gone to university, and that is one reason why they have supported the Labour party so solidly; they have always supported the idea of free access to higher education. My hon. Friend should come to my constituency to find out whether working-class people have those aspirations.

Mr. Rammell: It is not my intention to trade working-class credentials, but the matter is one on which I feel passionately, because I was the first person from my family to go to university. I grew up in a council house and come from a working-class background, and I very much value the benefit that I received from a university education. The fundamental problem with that argument is that, for every one of me or of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who benefited from the system, eight or nine of our contemporaries simply did not get the opportunity.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend explain to me and to my constituents how it is an incentive for people from poor backgrounds to go to university if they know that, at the end of their course, they will be £10,000 in debt? That is surely the fundamental issue: either we support poor students in going to college or we do not; if we do not, it is the middle classes who will benefit.

Mr. Rammell: There is nothing in the proposals to force students to pay before they go to university. If we are genuinely interested in opening up higher education and creating a mass opportunity for at least half our people, we must square the circle and ask the question how we are to fund the system.
Another key question is how we are to encourage people from lower-income backgrounds to go on to higher education. It is not simply a matter of finance. One of the

most striking statistics that I have come across is that the proportion of students from socio-economic groups D and E who go on to higher education is about 14 per cent. but that the proportion of those same students who gain two A-levels is greater than 50 per cent. We must improve our school system and open up new opportunities.
Some will argue that we must retain decent grants and not have tuition fees, paying the price of a reduced number of students in higher education. I do not support that elitist argument, and nor should the Government. We need to consider how genuinely to open up university education to allow as many people as possible to benefit.
The proposed reforms are necessary. The Conservative party's insistence that we accept the Dearing proposals lock, stock and barrel is interesting, but the idea that, had it won the general election, it would have accepted all 70 or 80 proposals without any intervention or independent thinking, is clearly unrealistic.
Overall, the package of reforms is necessary if we genuinely want to open up higher education. It is a package that must be viewed against the background of determination to open access and to increase student numbers. Part of the reason why we should support it is that, overall, we have ensured that students from lower-income families do not have to pay tuition fees.
This is a difficult issue. Many hon. Members have thought about it, but the key issue is opening access and getting more students from poorer families into higher education. The previous system has not done it. This one has a chance of doing it and we should support it.

Mr. Don Foster: Unlike the Labour and Conservative parties, which were unable at the last general election to go to the electorate with clear policies for the future funding of higher education—because they decided to wait until the Dearing committee reported—the Liberal Democrats considered this issue well before the general election. In our policy document "The Key to Lifelong Learning", we considered all our concerns, which are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the future funding of higher education, and we were able to come to some clear conclusions as to what the way forward should be.
We acknowledge, as Labour Members certainly do, that the 40 per cent. cut in funding over the past 10 years under the previous Government led to severe difficulties for universities. The financial pressures on them will be increased still further if the new Government do as we hope they will—ensure an increase in quality and opportunity to widen and extend access for students. If that is to happen, it is clear that higher education needs a significant injection of additional funds.
We considered how best that might be done. Of course, one of the options was the introduction of tuition fees. Very rapidly, we chose to reject that option. We easily came to the conclusion that their introduction would be an extension of a tax on learning—a student tax—and we were therefore fundamentally opposed it.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment would respond by saying that some students, notably part-timers, already pay tuition fees. We acknowledge that, but the right hon. Gentleman's solution to the problem of creating a level playing field is not to say that


we will try gradually to remove tuition fees for all students, including part-timers, but to say that we will introduce tuition fees for all students. Sadly, he is supported in that policy by the Conservative party.
As we have already seen, the introduction of tuition fees has led to considerable confusion. I do not need to repeat all the difficulties; we already know about the fiasco involving gap-year students, about the problem of Scottish universities, and about the confusion of students doing courses for four, five, six or even more years. We also know that means-tested tuition fees are socially regressive.
It is very surprising to find a Labour Government introducing a socially regressive policy. [Interruption.] I am asked, "Why is it socially regressive?" It is simple. It is based on parental income, rather than on the future income of students. It seems ludicrous that a child from a wealthy family will end up paying fees, but, later, when perhaps doing a relatively low-paid job, have to repay that amount, whereas someone from a low-paid family who ends up in a well-paid job will have nothing to pay back. Indeed, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government's policies were based on the future earnings of students. That is simply not true. Either the Prime Minister was misled by the Department or he is misleading himself.
Any political party that has stated that our universities need increased income also has a duty to be honest with the electorate and say where the additional funding will come from. In our policy documents, before and during the election, we made it clear what our solution was. We said that there are three beneficiaries from high-quality higher education. The first is the nation; so some of the additional money should come from the nation through increased income tax. Secondly, employers benefit; so they too should make an increased contribution, perhaps through an education and training levy. We also believe that students benefit; they too should pay more towards their costs.
That is why we accept the need to convert the current maintenance grant to a loan. In that respect, we support the Government. We accept the Secretary of State's argument that we have a simple choice: either to revert to a complete grant, or to revise the system completely and make it a loans system, based on a much fairer repayment regime.
The real difficulty tonight is not just with the Government's proposal to introduce tuition fees, but with the Government's refusal to ring-fence the money being raised from students for use in higher education. It is no good implying, as the Secretary of State did today, that if students want higher-quality higher education they should pay for it, if he will not even ensure that the money raised from them will be used to that end.
Ring fencing, coupled with a new system of resource accounting—I know the Secretary of State wants that introduced as quickly as possible—would release, by 2001, an additional £1 billion for use in higher education.
Although we will support the Government in the Lobby in this vote, we are disappointed that there will be no opportunity for a vote on tuition fees. We would definitely have voted against the Government on that. We are

disappointed, too, that we will not have the chance to vote on the ring-fencing of fees. On that also we would have voted against the Government.

Mr. Tony Benn: The one thing upon which the House is agreed is that the former Government left us with a very serious situation affecting the universities. There were serious anomalies, including the fact that students in further and part-time education paid fees while those in full-time education did not. But what the House has not been told is that the money saved by the previous Government was given in tax cuts to the very rich—that has hardly been mentioned in the debate.
I have listened carefully, but I am unpersuaded that the Government's proposals are the right ones. No one has mentioned the fact that if someone goes to college he or she forgoes three years' earnings. Those earnings may be from a low-paid job filling shelves in a supermarket; but someone doing that at £120 a week would end up with £18,000 after three years. That is the investment that students make in their education.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman was right to say that education benefits everybody. When I go to see my doctor from Chesterfield, I benefit from her education. Everybody in the House has benefited from the education of doctors and lawyers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lawyers?"] Of course: everybody benefits. The idea that the only beneficiary of education is the person who receives it is an illusion.
Then we come to the assertion that graduates make more money and therefore should pay more. What about people who make more money without being graduates? We should tax the rich, not the educated. The other day, I was picked up by a cab driver and I always ask cab drivers what they did before. The driver was about 20 years old and he said that he had worked in the City. When I asked what he had earned, he said "About £70,000 a year, but the firm went bust and now I'm back driving a cab." It is a ludicrous idea that those who have a degree ought to pay more tax than people who have more money and no degree.
I do not know how many hon. Members read the evidence given by Bernie Ecclestone to the Nolan committee. He said that what he did had nothing whatever to do with formula one; he gave the money to the Labour party because he had read that the Labour party would not increase personal taxation. These proposals are taxes on those who go to colleges to protect the wealthy from having to make any contribution.
As to the question of whether this measure was in the manifesto, one can use all sorts of phrases, but, throughout the whole election campaign, I never heard any member of the Front-Bench team say, "If you vote Labour, we will have tuition fees." It was never put like that. One can say, "We are going to ask people to make a proper contribution," or put it other ways, but if it had been said, "Vote Labour and there will be tuition fees," it would at least have alerted people to what was in the Government's mind, even if it would not have affected the outcome of the election.
One other point worries me: the arguments in favour of loans for higher education could apply equally to schools. The principle would be exactly the same if the Government were to say, "We need more money for schools; people who go to school do better; so we will let you go to secondary school, but you will have to take out a loan." I can imagine people saying to me, "Mr. Benn, we will give you an operation, but you will have to take a loan if you can't afford to pay now." The principle at stake is that of the welfare state: that we benefit collectively from the health and education of the nation. That is the argument and I fear that we are eroding it.
I do not know the Secretary of State's own view, but, having been a Minister for many years, I know that every Minister has a row with the Treasury. What we are doing tonight is paying the price for what the Chancellor said two days ago, reaffirming the continuation of the public expenditure limits set by the previous Chancellor before his Government were defeated. I might be wrong, but I did not meet anyone in the election campaign who said, "I'm voting Labour to be sure that the public expenditure limits of the Government now in power will be retained for the next five years." Perhaps there were some who did—perhaps new Labour made such an appeal, but it certainly did not do so in Chesterfield.
I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I wish we had more time to debate fees, but at least his is a solid amendment, reaffirming the Labour party's historic commitment to opening the way for people to go to college. I benefited from a free education before the grant system came in, because at the end of the war, if one had been in the Royal Air Force, one was allowed through; but I would find it awfully hard to watch any Member of Parliament who had benefited from grants going into the Lobby tonight to vote to replace those grants with loans and to introduce tuition fees.

Mr. Coaker: I rise to oppose the amendment and support the Government, because I do not believe that it is the lack of grants that will deter students from going on to higher education. In my view, grants do not determine who goes on to higher education.
If we look at the number of people going to university under the current system, we can see that that system is failing. The figures force us to confront the stark reality that the current higher education system benefits the higher socio-economic groups and disadvantages those at the bottom. Only 2 per cent. of those from the unskilled social group go on to higher education, compared with 14 per cent. and 39 per cent. from the top social groups.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Coaker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to elaborate my points, he will then be able to attack them.
Those are phenomenal figures. In 1997, 4,895 home applicants in the unskilled social class were accepted to degree courses. In the intermediate group—the second-highest social class—109,020 applicants were accepted. In the top, professional class, 37,758 applicants were accepted. That policy is not working to benefit the lower socio-economic classes; it is failing them. If we do not confront that fact and do something about it, we will continue to fail those people, even if we now feel that we are doing them a disservice.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Coaker: I shall develop my arguments first.
The repayment of the loan is progressive—it relates to income. That progressive tax is the system with which we want to replace grants. If people's incomes are below a certain level when they go to work, they will not repay the loan. They will repay it only on the basis of what they are earning. It is about time that we stopped frightening people by talking about students incurring debt, and started talking about lending people money so that they can invest in their future. We will then be able to move forward.

Mr. Hayes: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that this is a matter of semantics and marketing? Is he suggesting that the groups that he has described, which are not benefiting from the current system, will be encouraged and assisted by getting rid of the maintenance grant?

Mr. Coaker: That is exactly what I am confronting head on—the fact that the existing system is failing. If we fail to recognise that, all we will do is perpetuate that failure. These are hard choices, but we must make them.
We should consider why people from lower socio-economic groups are not going on to further and higher education. I have experience of working in schools, trying to encourage young people from those backgrounds to stay on in education. It is a question of getting those young people, not into higher education, but into further education. We cannot persuade many of them to stay on at 16, let alone 18. Again, if we do not confront that fact, we will not be in a position to do much about it. We should consider that in the context of all the reforms that we want to introduce.
The question is not one of money or grants, but one of raising people's educational achievement and their expectations, and of encouraging them to believe that they can stay on. We must expand opportunities in higher education and further education so that young people in the social groups about which we are particularly concerned can make progress. The Bill must be seen in conjunction with the School Standards and Framework Bill.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend said that we should not scare potential students about the level of debt but say, "We are transforming your grant into a loan and that is an investment opportunity for you." A number of years ago, the Conservative Government abolished the grants to several of my constituents under social security legislation and loaded them with debt. Was that an investment in their future?

Mr. Coaker: I am talking about trying to encourage young people into further and higher education. The current system does not work, but if we start talking about loans as investment for the future that allows people to go into further and higher education so that they can earn more and have all the opportunities and advantages that education brings, we will encourage more people from those backgrounds to stay on and, in doing so, we will create opportunities for all.
I taught for many years in schools that served those communities and, for the last few years, I worked as a deputy head teacher. The problems that we faced did not involve money—although that is also important. We could not encourage young people to stay on in education at 16 and go to college. We could not raise their expectations and we could not create a culture of educational achievement. That will be the real mark of the Government's success: if we achieve those aims, we will ensure that more young people go on to further and higher education. In that way, we shall create opportunities for all groups in society, but particularly for those at the bottom of society.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I speak in this debate as the first person from my family to enter higher education and as one who spent a long time representing students in post-16 and post-graduate education.
I praise the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who encapsulated the lessons that I learnt the hard way by representing students and the real politics that faced us when we gained office and read the Dearing report. Those who advocate swallowing all of Dearing forget that that report suggested that every student, regardless of his or her socio-economic background, should pay a flat tuition fee. [Interruption.] I do not find that funny. The reality for students under your Government was debt because of the way that you whittled down the student grant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Chair does not have a Government.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the passion carries me away.
Under the previous Administration, the student grant was whittled down to such a small amount that debt was a way of life for the majority of students. Therefore, I think that it is fickle for the Opposition to talk about student debt in relation to the maintenance grant. They had plenty of time to address the problem of debt among students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Labour turned honestly to the Dearing report before the last election—as did all three main parties. We recognised that we had a limited amount of money and a crisis on our hands and we considered how we would spend those funds.
As my colleagues have pointed out eloquently, the Government's priority was ensuring that the barrier to higher education was not at the point of access. I am disappointed that hon. Members have confused students with graduates in this debate. Students will pay off loans for tuition fees or maintenance grants only after they have graduated and their incomes have reached a certain level. Under the previous Administration, we had the most expensive student loans system that was ever manufactured. Despite all the economic expertise of the banks, London school of economics graduates, professors and so on, it would have been cheaper to give students the money than administer the old student loans system. We must be honest about the plight that many students face.
The other argument I wish to nail is the claim that we have enjoyed free state higher education and that this Government are somehow responsible for its abolition.

As has been said in the Chamber tonight, that denies the fact that many students have been responsible for meeting their own fees for years—only a minority of students were privileged to receive the state subsidy. That fact is swept under the carpet. The Opposition are not bothered that those students have had to shoulder the load; they have had to pay their fees and it has been hard. The reality, however, is that new Labour is about principles.

Mr. Richard Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No, I will not; I have limited time.
With limited money and with the crisis that we inherited, we had to ensure that there was no barrier to access for those poor students who, we believed, would have been more disfranchised by having to pay a tuition fee. That is where we put our subsidy. We are putting our policies and principles into practice. I am sad that some of my colleagues cannot see the reality of the system that we inherited.
In a perfect world, of course we would like everyone—

Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No; I have limited time and I am trying to let more hon. Members speak.
In an imperfect world, it is necessary to prioritise. We have prioritised, ensuring that poor students do not have to pay fees. If there is one message that must go out of the Chamber to the students of the future, it is: "If you come from a low-income background, you will not have to pay a fee under the present Government's proposals."

Yvette Cooper: Tonight, we have heard many arguments about access—especially access for people from low-income and low-skill backgrounds. Labour Members passionately agree about that. We all believe in that, we all want to achieve it and we are all passionately angry about the previous Government's failure to do enough to get children from lower-income backgrounds into higher education. However, we must be hard-headed about the way in which we act to pursue that goal.
In my constituency, the problem is not only the low number of people entering higher education, but the low number of people who stay on, after age 16, in any form of education. Nationally, 77 per cent. of 16-year-olds stay on in full-time or part-time education. In my constituency, only 50 per cent. do. From some schools, only 25 per cent. do.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I shall not give way. I am sorry, but I have little time and it has been a long debate.
In my constituency, 30 per cent. of teenagers leave school at 16 and go into unemployment or into a job with no training. That is the problem that we must face if we are to improve access to the crucial skills and education that, at the moment, are the key to prosperity in life. To tackle inequality in this country—

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry; I must make progress, because it has been a long debate and I want to finish to allow other hon. Members to get in.
To tackle inequality in this country today, we must do so through education. If we leave those 16-year-olds in my constituency without access to further or higher education, we are failing to tackle inequality. Faced with a choice between a continuation of the existing maintenance grant system, a return to the 1990 maintenance grant system, as suggested by amendment No. 36 and a new, fair, loan system that liberates hard cash to do something radical for the 16-year-olds in my constituency, enabling them to stay on and have a chance, I shall go for the fair loans and the cash, to do something more substantial.
It is a fair principle that graduates who earn more—

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry; I shall not take interventions.
It is a fair principle that graduates, as they earn more—because they do earn more—should pay something back. Even taking into account the three years that they may spend not earning, they still earn more. They earn masses more than the people in my constituency who are not going into any form of further or higher education—some figures say 10 per cent. more, others say 25 per cent. Either way, a degree is the key to getting on in life, and to higher earnings throughout life.
Of course, society also benefits from higher education, so society must continue to contribute to it. That is a central part of the Secretary of State's higher education funding proposals. Society must continue to pay, but it is fair that people who earn the most pay something back.
I have been very lucky. I have benefited not only from higher education and an undergraduate degree, but from being able to take a master's degree at the London school of economics. As a result of the latter, my earning power—my salary—doubled. I took out a career development loan to pay for that, and I have only just finished paying it back. I think that it was fair that I should take out a loan, rather than asking people in my constituency who have been taxpayers in low-income jobs to pay that subsidy to my higher earnings.
Of course, post-graduate education is different from undergraduate education. I do not say that the same principles should apply, but the underlying principle that if one earns more and is benefiting more, one should pay something back is surely right.
I ask the House, having listened to the debate this evening, not to vote for the status quo, which has not helped my constituents, but to take the radical approach, to go for the new, fair student loan system and to give us the cash to do something far more powerful to help my constituents to get a better chance in life.

11 pm

Mr. Green: Behind much of the passion that we have seen this evening lies a good deal of sadness. I share that sadness because the House will take an historic decision this evening if it votes against the amendment and votes with the Government today and tomorrow, and it is a historically wrong decision.
The maintenance grant has served many thousands of people well since it was introduced, and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Like many hon.

Members on both sides of the House, I benefited from it. I was educated at a state school, and my sister and I were the first generation of our family to go on to higher education. We benefited from maintenance grants.
Clearly, we cannot continue with the previous system if the expansion of higher education is to continue; we all accept that. That is why the previous Government introduced a mixed grant and loan system, and we can be proud of that. I am extremely proud of the massive expansion in higher education over the past 18 years. When we came to power, one in eight went into universities; when we left, the figure was one in three. That gave many thousands of young people the opportunity to go into higher education—an opportunity that they would never have had in any previous decade.
We should be proud of that expansion, and we should recognise that we achieved it through a balanced financial system which mixed grants and loans for those students. Many Labour Members pointed out that access did not diminish after loans were introduced, and we can all be proud of that. One Labour Member noted that since the loan system was introduced, not only did the numbers go up, but the range of those going into higher education increased. There can be no hon. Member who does not believe that we must do better in extending the range of those who have access to higher education.
The objection to the Government's proposals, and the reason why we support the amendment, is that their proposal will move sharply in the opposite direction. Many Labour Members are embarrassed about it because they feel that they are breaking their election pledge. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) observed that his constituents did not think that they were voting for the introduction of tuition fees if they voted for a Labour Government. He can go further than that.
A month before the election, in his 50 answers to the Evening Standard, the Prime Minister was asked in question No. 6:
Will Labour introduce tuition fees for higher education?
He replied:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could argue that something has happened since that has changed the situation.

Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Green: My time is limited and I want to give the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who moved the amendment, a chance to get in.
What has happened since that might have changed the situation? The Dearing committee reported. It was set up on a cross-party basis; everyone agreed that it was a sensible way forward and that we needed to examine the funding of higher education. I remember that my Labour opponent at the general election, who was a teacher at a university, always said that the Labour party could not make any commitments about higher education because it was waiting for Dearing to report.
That is how Labour fought the general election. What did the Government do as soon as they received the Dearing report? On the day that it was published, they started rubbishing it, and they decided not to implement one of its most important proposals. That is a betrayal not


just of the students of this country, but of everything that Labour told the British people during the general election campaign.
The Dearing committee was clearly set up with the idea that the time for maintenance grants might have gone. The issue has been discussed by those who care about funding for higher education for many years. There was a clear presumption that the Dearing report would come down on the side of saying that the time had passed for maintenance grants. We should respect the fact that after 14 months of study, the distinguished group that made up the Dearing committee decided, rather unexpectedly, that there was a role for maintenance grants to play in the future of British education. That decision was made precisely because the committee was most concerned with access to higher education for those who would not otherwise be able to afford it.
It is not simply a matter of adding up how much students might pay or determining who should not have to pay tuition fees. It is, as many hon. Members have said, a matter of culture. Those who say that we are reclassifying debt as investment and who claim that by so doing, everything will be all right, are talking nonsense. People know when they are in debt. They know that they will have £10,000 to pay back when they leave university.
Students who come from less well-off backgrounds are much less likely to take the risk. It would be a tragedy for those individuals and for the country as a whole if less well-off children, thinking about higher education, decided that it was too high a risk and said, "I'll play it safe and not go into higher education." If the Government force through their proposal, they will condemn thousands of the less well-off to a less good life than they could achieve by their own efforts and damage our economic performance by narrowing the base of those who will develop the skills that we as a country need to ensure that our prosperity continues.
The position is worse than that, because there is no guarantee that the money that will be raised from the fees and saved on the maintenance grant will be put into higher education. We have had half a commitment for this year and we have no commitment for future years. This is a Treasury-driven agenda which will do nothing for higher education. The Government have disappeared into the logic of their own focus groups. They have decided that if the Treasury demands it, they prefer to clobber the poor rather than the better-off. That is an historic mistake.
I admit that the motives of many of those on the left of British politics have been good. I think that they have been wrong-headed, but socialism clearly arose from a desire to promote common decency. Uniquely, the Government are throwing out the baby of common decency with the bath water of socialism. Socialism has been proved to be intellectually wrong and not to work. However, behind it there was a thought—many Labour Members must have gone into politics with this in mind—that there must be some common decency. The Government are betraying the sense of common decency that brought many Labour Members into politics in the first place.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will have to do much better than that if he

is to succeed on the Opposition Front Bench. He said that he was proud of the Conservative Government. Is he proud of a 40 per cent. cut in unit costs per student? Is he proud of capping entry into university, to prevent increased access? Is he proud of a Government who halved the grant, but who did not provide additional funds for access or for hardship, which we are doing by means of the Bill?
The hon. Gentleman's opponent at the general election was right. We spelled out clearly what we would do on maintenance, and we said that we would review the Dearing proposals on fees.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not.
We are voting on the issue of the maintenance award. We are voting not on fees, but on whether a manifesto commitment, which was explicit, will be carried forward. We are voting on whether a Labour party conference decision, which was overwhelming, will be carried this evening. We are talking about ensuring that students have the money at the point when they need it, and that they repay it when they can afford to do so.
That is the simple issue before us. It is not a matter of principle about free post-16 education, because that is not even at stake within the amendment. If it were, part-timers and further education students would be in a different position from full-time undergraduates. No principle is being laid aside. We are talking about a provision to ensure that no one is in hardship at university, with additional provision for those who find themselves in difficulty, with loans to be repaid at a real nil rate of interest based on the Inland Revenue system and linked entirely to ability to pay.
We are asking the House to carry forward this signal reform in the funding of the higher education system, so that the majority, not the minority, can benefit. For the sake of a modern Britain in a new century, we ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Canavan: The Government propose to abolish maintenance grants and to make students completely dependent on loans. To put sugar on the pill, the Government are telling students that they will be able to borrow more money and repay it over a longer period. May I say to the Secretary of State that it is little consolation, especially to students from low-income families, to be told that the millstone around their necks will be heavier and there for longer?
May I also say to the Secretary of State that nothing in my amendment is inconsistent with Labour party policy or with the manifesto commitment, which was a bit ambiguous? It said that the costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis. Some graduates might argue that they already do that by paying income tax. May I also say to him that, sooner or later, the Government will have to grasp the nettle and realise that the introduction of a progressive taxation system is essential for a fair education system?
The Secretary of State has already introduced some special financial support for students with disabilities and lone parent students, and I welcome that. If my amendment proposed the abolition of loans and the


reintroduction of a comprehensive system of maintenance grants for all students, I might be able to understand part of his argument that, in some way, it conflicts with his reading of the manifesto, but I am not proposing that. All I propose is that there should be some maintenance grant for students from low-income families. I imagine that most hon. Members, at some stage in their careers, have received the advantage of a maintenance grant to enable them to go on to college and university. I appeal to every hon. Member please not to kick away the ladder of opportunity from future generations, and please to support my amendment in the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 313.

Division No. 294]
[11.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fox, Dr Liam


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fraser, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gerrard, Neil


Baldry, Tony
Gibb, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gill, Christopher


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bercow, John
Grant, Bernie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gray, James


Blunt, Crispin
Green, Damian


Boswell, Tim
Grieve, Dominic


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brady, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hammond, Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hayes, John


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cash, William
Horam, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Key, Robert


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dafis, Cynog
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dalyell, Tam
Lansley, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livingstone, Ken


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Loughton, Tim


Etherington, Bill
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malins, Humfrey





Maples, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Marek, Dr John
Spring, Richard


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Swayne, Desmond


May, Mrs Theresa
Swinney, John


Mitchell, Austin
Syms, Robert


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Tyrie, Andrew


Pollard, Kerry
Viggers, Peter


Powell, Sir Raymond
Walter, Robert


Prior, David
Wardle, Charles


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew



Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Rogers, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Rowlands, Ted
Willetts, David


Ruffley, David
Wilshire, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Salmond, Alex
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wise, Audrey


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and 


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. John McDonnell.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Burnett, John


Alexander, Douglas
Burstow, Paul


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caplin, Ivor


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Banks, Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beard, Nigel
Church, Ms Judith


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)



Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Coaker, Vernon


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Borrow, David
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coleman, Iain


Bradshaw, Ben
Colman, Tony


Brake, Tom
Connarty, Michael


Breed, Colin
Cooper, Yvette


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Corbett, Robin



Corston, Ms Jean


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cotter, Brian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cox, Tom


Browne, Desmond
Cranston, Ross


Buck, Ms Karen
Crausby, David


Burgon, Colin
Cummings, John






Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Efford, Clive
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ennis, Jeff
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fatchett, Derek
Laxton, Bob


Fearn, Ronnie
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Flint, Caroline
Linton, Martin


Follett, Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Love, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Galbraith, Sam
McDonagh, Siobhain


Galloway, George
Macdonald, Calum


Gapes, Mike
McFall, John


Gardiner, Barry
McGuire, Mrs Anne


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McLeish, Henry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gorrie, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
MacShane, Denis


Grocott, Bruce
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Gunnell, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Hancock, Mike
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Merron, Gillian


Harris, Dr Evan
Michael, Alun


Harvey, Nick
Milburn, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moffatt, Laura


Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Heppell, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Home Robertson, John
Norris, Dan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oaten, Mark


Hope, Phil
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
O'Neill, Martin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pendry, Tom





Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Stott, Roger


Pond, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken



Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul



Vaz, Keith


Roy, Frank
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruane, Chris
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
Webb, Steve


Sheerman, Barry
White, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Singh, Marsha
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wills, Michael



Wilson, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Stevenson, George

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [19 May] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 15, line 45, at end insert—

'(j) modifying any enactment or instrument (whenever passed or made) so as to provide for the treatment, in connection with any calculation with respect to the income (however defined) of persons to whom grants or loans are made under this section, of amounts due from or payable to such persons under such grants or loans;
(k) for appeals with respect to matters arising under the regulations (including provision for determining, or enabling the determination of, the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals).'.

No. 71, in page 16, line 32, leave out 'any government department,'.

No. 76, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'remuneration' and insert 'emoluments'.

No. 65, in page 17, line 3, at end insert—

'(ca) requiring the payment, by persons or bodies to whom requirements imposed in pursuance of any of paragraphs

(a) to (c) apply, of—

(i) penalties in cases of non-compliance with, or otherwise framed by reference to, such requirements, and
(ii) interest in respect of periods when such penalties are due but unpaid;

(cb) requiring the payment by borrowers, in respect of periods when amounts due under their loans are unpaid, of—

(i) interest (applied to such amounts at a rate calculated otherwise than in accordance with subsection (4)(a)), or
(ii) both such interest and one or more surcharges (together with further interest in respect of periods when such surcharges are due but unpaid);'.

No. 66, in page 17, line 10, leave out 'Income Tax' and insert 'Taxes'.

No. 70, in page 17, line 12, at end insert—
'(f) determining the priority as between deductions falling to be made by virtue of paragraph (a)(i) and deductions falling to be made from emoluments payable to borrowers by virtue of other enactments (whenever passed).'.

No. 67, in page 17, line 14, at end insert
', and "the Taxes Acts" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Management Act 1970'.

No. 72, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 38.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 26

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER I

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 20, line 45, at end insert—
'(ba) fees payable for field trips (including any tuition element of such fees),'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 27

GRANTS AND LOANS: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 21, leave out line 34.

No. 41, in page 21, line 36, leave out from 'loans"' to end of line 1 on page 22 and insert—
'() After that section there shall be inserted—

Delegation or transfer of functions relating to student support

73AA.—(1) If the Secretary of State so determines, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations made under section 73(f) of this Act shall, to such extent as is specified in his determination, be exercisable instead by such body or person as is so specified.

(2) A person or body by whom any function is for the time being exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) above shall comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that function.

(3) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for any person or body specified in the arrangements to exercise on his behalf, to such extent as is so specified, any function exercisable by him by virtue of regulations under section 73(f) of this Act (including any such functions as to appeals).

(4) Any arrangements made under subsection (3) above shall not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the function in question himself.

(5) The Secretary of State may make provision for enabling appeals—

(a) to be made with respect to such matters arising out of the exercise by any person or body of any function by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above as he may determine; and
(b) to be so made to a person or body appointed by him for that purpose.

(6) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body by whom any function is exercisable by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above—

(a) such amounts as he considers appropriate for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that person or body—

(i) in making grants or loans by virtue of regulations under section 73(f) of this Act, or
(ii) by way of administrative expenses,
in, or in connection with, the exercise of that function;

(b) in the case of any such person, or of any body with which the Secretary of State has made arrangements under subsection (3) above, such remuneration as he may determine.

(7) Any payment under subsection (6)(a) above may be made subject to such terms and conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Secretary of State may determine.

(8) The Secretary of State may pay to any person or body appointed by him under subsection (5) such remuneration or administrative expenses (or both) as he may determine.

(9) In relation to any function which, by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) above is exercisable to a specified extent, references in any other provision of this section to the exercise of that function are accordingly to its exercise to that extent.'.

No. 42, in page 22, line 3, leave out '73(1)' and insert '73'.

No. 43, in page 22, line 17, leave out 'any government department'.

No. 44, in page 22, line 25, leave out 'remuneration' and insert 'emoluments'.

No. 45, in page 22, line 40, at end insert—

(ca) requiring the payment by persons or bodies to whom the requirements imposed in pursuance of paragraphs (a) to (c) above apply, of—

(i) penalties in cases of non-compliance with, or otherwise framed by reference to, such requirements, and
(ii) interest in respect of periods when such penalties are due but unpaid;

(cb) requiring the payment by borrowers, in respect of periods when amounts due under their loans are unpaid, of—

(i) interest (applied to such amounts at a rate calculated otherwise than in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) below), or
(ii) both such interest and one or more surcharges (together with further interest in respect of periods when such surcharges are due but unpaid).'.

No. 46, in page 22, line 47, leave out
'under section 73(I)(f) of this Act or under this section'
and insert
'to which this section applies'.

No. 47, in page 22, line 49, leave out 'Income Tax' and insert 'Taxes'.

No. 48, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—



'(f) determining the priority as between deductions falling to be made by virtue of paragraph (a)(i) above and deductions falling to be made from emoluments payable to borrowers by virtue of other enactments (whenever passed);
(g) modifying any enactment or instrument (whenever passed or made) so as to provide for the treatment, in connection with any calculation with respect to income (however defined), of amounts due from or payable to such persons under loans granted by virtue of regulations to which this section applies.'.

No. 49, in page 23, line 5, at end insert
'and "the Taxes Acts" has the same meaning as in the Taxes Management Act 1970'.

No. 50, in page 23, line 42, at end insert—
'(10A) Regulations to which this section applies may make provision for appeals with respect to matters arising under such regulations (including provision for determining, or enabling the determination of, the procedure to be followed in connection with such appeals).'.

No. 51, in page 23, line 42, at end insert—
'(10B) Regulations to which this section applies may, in relation to a borrower's discharge under or by virtue of section 54 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or on an order being made under paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to that Act, make provision for the treatment of any debt or liability to which a borrower is, or may become, subject in respect of sums received, or which he is entitled to receive, after the date of his sequestration.'.

No. 52, in page 23, line 44, leave out '73(1)(f)' and insert '73(f)'.

No. 53, in page 24, line 25, leave out '73(1)(f)'' and insert '73(f)'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Clause 28

IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS AS TO FEES AT FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 26, line 7, leave out 'respect of and insert 'connection with'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

More than six hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to the Resolution this day.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We have four motions before the House; it may be convenient to take them together.

Mr. Eric Forth: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall take them one by one—first, motion 3.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions relating to National Savings) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 6th April, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 56.

Division No. 295]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ainger, Nick
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Alexander, Douglas
Dawson, Hilton


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Denham, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Atherton, Ms Candy
Donohoe, Brian H


Atkins, Charlotte
Doran, Frank


Austin, John
Dowd, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Efford, Clive


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ennis, Jeff


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Berry, Roger
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Borrow, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradshaw, Ben
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burgon, Colin
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Canavan, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Grant, Bernie


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grogan, John


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hain, Peter


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cohen, Harry
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coleman, Iain
Hanson, David


Colman, Tony
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cox, Tom
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cranston, Ross
Hill, Keith


Crausby, David
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hope, Phil


Dalyell, Tam
Hopkins, Kelvin


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John






Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Love, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain



McDonnell, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Snape, Peter


McIsaac, Shona
Soley, Clive


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNamara, Kevin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McNulty, Tony
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWalter, Tony
Stinchcombe, Paul


McWilliam, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Mallaber, Judy
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Stringer, Graham


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Merron, Gillian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Michael, Alun
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin
Touhig, Don


Moffatt, Laura
Trickett, Jon


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Truswell, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mudie, George
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mullin, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Walley, Ms Joan


Norris, Dan
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Watts, David


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
White, Brian


O'Hara, Eddie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pickthall, Colin
Wills, Michael


Pike, Peter L
Wilson, Brian





Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wise, Audrey



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)





NOES


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Leigh, Edward


Baker, Norman
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Ballard, Jackie
Livsey, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Robathan, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stunell, Andrew


Gorrie, Donald
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Viggers, Peter


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hawkins, Nick
Walter, Robert


Hayes, John
Wardle, Charles


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Webb, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. John Bercow and Mr. Eric Forth.


Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

MARINE POLLUTIONM

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Pollution) (SOLAS) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 10.

Division No. 296]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Alexander, Douglas
Boateng, Paul


Allan, Richard
Borrow, David


Allen, Graham
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradshaw, Ben


Atkins, Charlotte
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Austin, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Baker, Norman
Browne, Desmond


Ballard, Jackie
Buck, Ms Karen


Barron, Kevin
Burgon, Colin


Bayley, Hugh
Burnett, John


Beard, Nigel
Butler, Mrs Christine


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Casale, Roger






Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gorrie, Donald


Chaytor, David
Grant, Bernie


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hancock, Mike


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harris, Dr Evan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Kate


Cranston, Ross
Home Robertson, John


Crausby, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Hurst, Alan


Darvill, Keith
Hutton, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jenkins, Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kirkwood, Archy


Etherington, Bill
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fatchett, Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lepper, David


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAllion, John


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonnell, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McLeish, Henry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNamara, Kevin





McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Mallaber, Judy
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Mudie, George
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Norris, Dan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wallace, James


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Webb, Steve


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rendel, David



Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wills, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wise, Audrey


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sanders, Adrian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Sheerman, Barry



NOES


Bercow, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wilshire, David


Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Dr. Julian Lewis and Mr. Eric Forth.


Leigh, Edward

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DEFENCE

That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Fire Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Allan be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Bob Russell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Playing Fields (Planning Permission)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I thank the House for this opportunity to talk about playing fields—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Due consideration must be given to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate.

Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I say, I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of playing fields. I know from colleagues on both sides of the House that this issue affects many constituencies where there is concern about the pressure to develop playing fields, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I talk particularly about my constituency and our concerns about the threat to a playing field in Bromsgrove, which is commonly known as the recreation ground.
I should like to make clear the circumstances in which this debate has arisen. There is a proposal to build an arts and leisure complex on an area of ground known as the rec. It is in the very centre of town, and was covenanted in 1911 for the purposes of recreation. This green space has been used for those very purposes for the best part of a century. The Labour district council proposed to build the complex in its 1995 manifesto; we learned only subsequently that it was to be built on the green space in the centre of town.
I do not oppose the idea of an arts and leisure complex for Bromsgrove. As an ancient market town in north Worcestershire, we have been stripped of many of our services. They have gone to other towns in the area—especially to the new town of Redditch. It is important to the cultural life of Bromsgrove that we have an arts complex. Only a few weeks ago, I visited the local operatic society. It had been forced to hire part of the district council's offices, known as the Spadesbourne suite, at huge cost; and had had to install a tiered seating system to enable an audience to attend. Three thousand pounds, which is what it cost the society, is far too much for a small operatic company to expect to get in gate money—hence the need for such a local facility.
The campaigners believe, as I do, that the complex should not be sited on the recreation ground. The proposal is to use a site fronting Market street on the east, or town side, with Recreation road to the north and Churchfields to the west. The area under consideration has an Asda superstore to the south; in front of the superstore is a car park. The proposal is to move the car park to the green space known as the rec, and to build the arts and leisure complex on the area that is now the car park.
We object to the proposal first and foremost because the park is a green lung in the centre of our town. It is an attractive old market town, although more could be done to make it more attractive still. Building an arts complex in this location, however, would do a great disservice to the attractions of our town centre. The green space in the centre of Bromsgrove is used for all sorts of recreation:


walking dogs, lunching on sunny afternoons out of office hours, and so on—all this in addition to the regular sporting activities held on the site.
The proposed plan would also cause severe traffic congestion. It is already almost impossible to move around the centre at teatime, when office workers are leaving for home. The new facility would only worsen the traffic problems, and prolong the hours of severe congestion. The centre of town is not well served by roads; most traffic is taken by the ring road outside, but for those who need to enter and leave the centre, the congestion is acute at certain times of day. I do not believe that the proposal will make that any better; nor is there any way in which roads could be constructed to alleviate the traffic problem if an arts and leisure complex were built.
Our third objection is that the complex could have a severe impact on the town centre itself. Like many small market towns, we have been severely affected by the growth in out-of-town shopping centres. I am not here to oppose what many of my constituents want—they like to shop in Merry Hill, and we all understand that it is easy to park and to shop there. The future for Bromsgrove is not to compete with what Merry Hill does, but to provide a different shopping experience, by giving resources and making improvements to the town centre.
As I shall be knocking my Labour council quite a lot during my speech, I should say that I was pleased to see in the local newspaper this week that improvements are to be made to the town centre to do it up a little. That is a welcome development, because we must cash in on our antiquity, our uniqueness and our having a high street which does not contain only predictable stores. It has niche stores which casual shoppers find more interesting and entertaining on a Saturday afternoon. The fear is that a rival centre, not based in the high street, will only add to Bromsgrove town centre's problems.
The recreation ground is used for sporting activities, and until last year, when the proposal appeared clearly on the agenda, goalposts were erected during the season on the recreation ground. It was mean of the council not to erect the goalposts this year as the precursor to the proposal to build on the ground, and perhaps in acknowledgement of the fact that the campaign to save the rec was gaining ground. The removal of the goalposts is disappointing to the teams that regularly used the ground for weekend sports. For all those reasons, we are concerned that the proposal should not be allowed to proceed, and I hope that the Minister has taken on board those objections.
Many thousands of objections have been sent in, although the district council disputes who, what and where, and active petitions have been raised to object to the plans. I should like to put on record the efforts of Dennis Norton, who has led the campaign to save the rec. He is a respected business man in Bromsgrove, and has a great love and affection for the town. He has left his collection of material relating to Bromsgrove for the benefit of the townspeople, and no one could suggest that his heart does not lie with the best interests of Bromsgrove. However, that kindness and love for our town has been repaid by those who object to his objections, with a high-handed and unsatisfactory response.
I do not wish to name all those involved in the campaign, but I should like to mention a dear friend, Lorna Priddey, who has acted as an unofficial secretary to the campaigners and worked to save the rec for the benefit of the people of Bromsgrove in her characteristic unstinting, dedicated and kind-hearted way.
Those of us who object to the proposals are unhappy with the way the council has treated us. Some high-handed letters have been sent to people who have sent in objections, and the discussions on the proposals for the recreation ground have, in large part, been held in private council chamber. I doubt that the new Government would approve of that, given their determination to have more open government. It is only fair to the people of Bromsgrove that such discussions should take place in more open proceedings.
There is also a sense of legitimate grievance that the two local newspapers that bear Bromsgrove's name were not used to advertise the plans, on the spurious ground that they did not cover the entire constituency. A paper that is not, perhaps, as well read was therefore given the notice, which caused offence.
I am sorry to tell the Minister, but it is true, that Bromsgrove has the misfortune to be served by a rather second-rate Labour council—unlike our new Labour Government—which is out of touch with what the people of Bromsgrove want. It is belligerently determined to continue with the proposal, despite the objections that it is receiving. I appeal to the Minister to listen to the wider views of the community, and to persuade his colleagues on the council to choose an alternative site for this development.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend realise that the tale that she has told, which is fascinating and new to me, is replicated, almost word for word, by a case in my constituency of West Dorset, and, I suspect, by similar cases in the constituencies of many other hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the subject before the House.

Miss Kirkbride: I am very much aware that the use of playing fields for all sorts of schemes affects all hon. Members. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts, and those who have written to me about their experience in West Dorset, on a successful campaign to stop such a development. That is what can happen when an assiduous Member of Parliament is representing the people's interests.
There has been rudeness in the Labour council's dealings with those who have objected to the planning permission, including myself. It has been suggested that we are getting our facts wrong, but the council is refusing to admit that there is public hostility. I shall read a little from the letters that the council has received. People who live very close to the site concerned wrote:
We would like to assure the council that the land is most definitely still regularly used for the purpose in which it was intended as an open space and recreation facility. We live opposite the field and feel we are in a far better position to know how often people play football, cricket, walk their dogs and generally use the area than councillors sat behind closed doors … If they came to the area regularly in particular on a Saturday or Sunday they would see for themselves.


That letter is symptomatic of the objections and feelings of the people of Bromsgrove about the fact that their opinions have not been taken into account.
That letter raised another objection about the likely increase in noise pollution. It says:
We would like to point out that we have suffered sleepless nights, caused by groups of youths playing loud music from amplifiers on the existing car park"—
which is some distance from the houses—
at 2 and 3 am",
and it goes on to say:
by moving the car park … nearer the houses this would again become a very real problem.
That is what the people of Bromsgrove feel.
Clearly, I took up this issue before I had the good fortune of having this debate. I took it up with the English Sports Council. When I last spoke to the council, it had yet to proceed with the final acceptance of planning permission, and it is only at that stage that the Sports Council will be officially and finally asked for its views. As an interim—albeit pretty clear—indication of the likely response, this letter was copied to me after being sent to the chief executive. It states:
The English Sports Council has considered the application in the light of its playing field policy … It is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that any of the identified special circumstances apply in this case and in the absence of a suitable justification for the development we wish to register our objection to the planning application.
We know that the English Sports Council disagrees with the proposal.
I ask the Minister to address two issues on the record. First, if the sports council continues to disapprove of the development when the council has submitted its final planning application, can I be reassured—and may I reassure my constituents—that the matter will go to the Secretary of State for planning approval? Bromsgrove district council must not be allowed to act unilaterally: it must seek the final approval of the Secretary of State if the sports council objects.
Secondly, will the Minister amplify the Government's policy on playing fields? I understand that Labour's sports manifesto, entitled "Labour's Sporting Nation", states specifically that the Government will end the policy of selling playing fields. It seems likely that this Labour council will conflict with the Labour Government's policy. Labour's manifesto states clearly that the Government will not allow this sort of development of playing fields, yet for some extraordinary reason that message has not reached Labour councillors.
As this is a fraught issue, it has been suggested that I am wrong to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House tonight. I am aware that, if it becomes a matter for the Secretary of State, his judicial functions will preclude the Minister from stating clearly the Government's attitude to the planning procedure. We also face the problem—I do not wish to stray from the subject under discussion—of hospital cuts and closures in my area affecting the Kidderminster general and Alexandra hospitals. No one would suggest that I should not raise the difficult subject of hospital closures in the House of Commons until the decision is taken to close those hospitals.
Therefore, I point out to my critics that I am not willing to stand by and see the recreation ground developed without mentioning the proposal in every forum available,

in an effort to stop the development before a final decision is taken. When that occurs, my constituents and I will have nowhere else to go to raise our legitimate objections.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on her success in securing the debate, and on presenting the case on behalf of her constituents. I fully understand why she has raised the issue, but I hope that she will appreciate that it would be improper for me to comment on the merits of the case as it is likely to be referred to my Department. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would have a quasi-judicial role in considering the matter, and it would be improper for us to prejudice in any way our consideration of the facts. That is why we must be circumspect in responding to the specific case.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that I am happy to respond in the spirit in which she initiated the debate by outlining the Government's policy on the matter, and what we are doing to protect playing fields.
Under the previous Government, local authorities faced considerable pressures on their resources, and many felt that they had no alternative but to look to the disposal of assets in order to generate additional resources. That led many authorities to sell off open spaces and playing fields.
The present Government believe that selling off playing fields and open spaces is wrong, and we have proposed that the practice should be subject to greater scrutiny. We believe that playing fields are vital for maintaining the quality of our communities. They provide an essential recreational resource for schools and the wider community. It is important that people have access to playing fields and open spaces close to where they live.
We therefore attach a high importance to retaining playing fields in urban areas. In recent years, too many have been lost, and grass-roots sport has suffered as a result. I entirely endorse the anxieties that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove expressed about people's need for access to open space for recreational purposes. That is why the Government made a manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields that schools and communities need.
The current Government policy is contained in planning policy guidance note No. 17, on sport and recreation. That emphasises the special significance of all playing fields, and stresses that they should usually be protected. It advises local planning authorities that they should distinguish in their development plans between parks and other open spaces that need protecting from development, as against sites that are temporarily in recreational use, or unused open land which may be suitable for development.
PPG 17, which dates back to the previous Government, says that playing fields should not be developed for other uses unless it has been established that the sites will not be required, in the longer term, for school or community use. The emphasis is on identifying whether there are local deficiencies in provision, and protecting such facilities by policies in plans and showing sites to which the policies apply on the proposal map in the local plan. That is the current position under PPG 17.
As I have stressed, and as I believe the hon. Member for Bromsgrove recognises, despite the guidance in PPG17, there are growing pressures on the potential use


of playing fields. Those pressures could well increase—for example, in light of our need to accommodate a growing number of households. On 23 February 1998, the Government issued their policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future". The document stressed the importance of locating new development, wherever possible, in existing urban areas. That is common sense, in order to safeguard the countryside, but there is the difficult corollary that, unless development is controlled, pressure on open space may increase.
We want to make it absolutely clear that good-quality playing fields and open spaces will remain available in urban areas, and will not be swallowed up as part of the process of trying to accommodate increasing amounts of housing in urban areas. Urban quality should not be sacrificed, which means that open spaces and playing fields need greater protection.
Since 1 August 1996, local planning authorities in England have been obliged to consult the English Sports Council on any planning application involving the development of playing fields. We have carried out a review of the first year of operation of that new arrangement, which showed that planning permission was granted for 26 of the 35 applications to which the sports council objected. That strongly suggests that there are real grounds for concern.
Accordingly, we assessed 22 of the cases that were granted planning permission, to discover whether there were any significant problems. As a result of that analysis, on 16 January the Government announced how they would fulfil their manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields that schools and communities need.
The initiative that we announced in January co-ordinates three measures, respectively from the Department for Education and Employment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The object was to send a clear message to all local authorities to discourage them from selling and permitting the development of local authority-owned playing fields that are needed.
The Department for Education and Employment currently has legislation before Parliament which will require the prior consent of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where the local authority, a governing body or a foundation proposes to dispose of a school playing field, or where a local authority proposes to change the use of a playing field. The DFEE will consult shortly on the criteria on the basis of which decisions will be taken.
With regard to our position, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be tightening up planning controls in respect of development of all local authority-owned playing fields where the English Sports Council advises against the proposals. We are suggesting that a local planning authority will be required to notify the Secretary of State of any proposal for development of a local authority-owned playing field, where the English Sports Council has objected because it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of playing fields.
The notification procedure will be triggered where a relevant sports council has lodged an objection to an application because it is concerned that there is an existing

deficiency of playing fields, or that the proposal may result in such deficiency. We consulted all local planning authorities about the proposed arrangements on 12 February, and there was overwhelming support for our proposals. We propose to issue a direction shortly under the general permitted development procedure order to bring the arrangements into operation.
The hon. Lady might reasonably ask—if her speech had not been completed—what we will do in the interim. We have advised local planning authorities to consider whether it is possible to defer making decisions, or alternatively to inform the local Government office of any contested cases that would meet the requirements of the new arrangements.
The Secretary of State has the power to issue a direction under article 14 of the general development procedure order that would prevent the granting of planning permission by a local planning authority, if the Secretary of State considered it necessary to use that power because the local authority was unlikely to refer the matter. However, we are advised by the Government office for the west midlands that the particular case will be referred to the Secretary of State. Assuming that that is correct, the hon. Lady has no grounds for concern.
As for the future, local planning authorities are required to determine planning applications in accordance with their development plans. For planning applications involving the development of playing fields and open spaces, local authorities must take into account the longer-term needs of the wider community and consider whether there is, or is likely to be, a deficiency of playing fields and public open space.
If the application is likely to result in local deficiency in the supply of playing fields, there should be a presumption in favour of rejecting it. If there is doubt as to whether there is deficiency or whether the application is likely to result in deficiency—in other words, where the local planning authority and the English Sports Council disagree—the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether to leave the application for the local authority to determine or to determine it himself.
I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady that the Government have acted and are acting in the interim to ensure greater protection for playing fields. That is our overriding concern. I am sure that she will appreciate why I cannot comment on the particulars of the individual case, which are likely to come, by one means or another, to the Secretary of State for final decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.